Allowed¶46

R.Aswini Kumar v. T.S.Jai Ganesh

Madras HC6 Oct 2025TR CMP/842/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Inter-court transfer of matrimonial case; Section 24 CPC transfer petition; wife's convenience as cardinal consideration; N.C.V.Aishwarya vs. A.S.Saravana Karthik (SC, MANU/SC/1211/2022); S.19(iii)(a) Hindu Marriage Act wife's jurisdictional preference; H.M.O.P. transfer Chennai to Neyveli Subordinate Court; parallel Magistrate Court litigation Neyveli; respondent set ex parte; Madras High Court Tr.CMP; dissolution of marriage proceedings; no costs.

What did the court decide?

Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition allowed; H.M.O.P.No.1941 of 2023 withdrawn from the file of the I Additional Family Court, Chennai and transferred to the file of the Subordinate Court, Neyveli; no orders as to costs; connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition (C.M.P.No.18724 of 2024) closed. ¶46

R.Aswini Kumar Vs T.S.Jai Ganesh — Matrimonial and Divorce | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶46

Issue for consideration

Whether H.M.O.P.No.1941 of 2023 (dissolution of marriage petition filed by the respondent husband), pending before the I Additional Family Court, Chennai, ought to be transferred to the file of the Subordinate Court, Neyveli, having regard to the petitioner-wife's convenience.

¶15

Court's answer

The petitioner-wife, who lives with her parents at Neyveli, depends on them for livelihood, and faces difficulty attending hearings at Chennai (with parallel litigation pending at Neyveli), made out a good ground for transfer of H.M.O.P.No.1941 of 2023 to the Subordinate Court, Neyveli.

¶28

Ratio / Principle

Considering the proposition laid down in N.C.V.Aishwarya (Apex Court) and the observation that the convenience of the wife has to be considered while transferring a case from one Court to another, there is no impediment to allowing the transfer petition as prayed for.

¶41

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Transfer petition under Section 24 CPC by the wife ALLOWED: H.M.O.P.No.1941 of 2023 (dissolution petition filed by the husband) withdrawn from the I Additional Family Court, Chennai and transferred to the Subordinate Court, Neyveli. Grounds: petitioner lives with her parents at Neyveli, is dependent on them for livelihood, would find it extremely difficult to attend every hearing at Chennai, and another litigation between the parties is pending before the Magistrate Court, Neyveli. Respondent, served with notice, did not appear and was set ex parte. Court relied on N.C.V.Aishwarya vs. A.S.Saravana Karthik (SC) — in matrimonial transfer pleas the wife's convenience is generally what must be looked at, and interdependent proceedings raising common questions are desirably tried together — and on a Madurai Bench decision (Tr.CMP(MD)No.108 of 2010, dt. 03.03.2011) holding that the wife's jurisdictional preference under S.19(iii)(a) Hindu Marriage Act must not be used to wreak vengeance and requires justifiable cause. No costs; connected C.M.P. closed. Single judge: M. Jothiraman, J.; decision dated 06.10.2025.

¶1

Tr.CMP.No.842 of 2024 and C.M.P.No.18724 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 06.10.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN

¶6

Tr.CMP.No.842 of 2024 and C.M.P.No.18724 of 2024

Mrs.R.Aswini Kumar

... Petitioner

Versus

Mr.T.S.Jai Ganesh ... Respondent

¶11

Prayer:- Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 24 of the CPC, to withdraw the proceedings in H.M.O.P.No.1941 of 2023 pending on the file of I Additional Family Court, Chennai to the file of Subordinate Court, Neyveli.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Pradeep For Respondent : No appearance

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

The petitioner / wife has come up with the above transfer petition,

¶15

seeking transfer of H.M.O.P.No.1941 of 2023 from the file of I Additional Family Court, Chennai to the file of Subordinate Court, Neyveli.

¶16

Despite service of notice in the above transfer petition, the

¶17

1/6

¶18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶19

Tr.CMP.No.842 of 2024 and C.M.P.No.18724 of 2024

¶20

respondent has neither chosen to appear in person nor through counsel. The name of the respondent is also printed in the cause list. Name of the respondent was called out, but there is no response. Hence, he is set ex parte. I have proceeded to hear the learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also gone through the affidavit filed in support of the request for transfer.

¶21

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that

¶22

the respondent husband has filed a petition for dissolution of marriage in H.M.O.P.No.1941 of 2023 on the file of I Additional Family Court, Chennai and the same is pending.

¶23

The petitioner states that she is living with her parents at Neyveli and

¶24

she is dependent on her parents for the livelihood and hence, it would be extremely difficult for her to attend each and every hearing at I Additional Family Court, Chennai. It is also stated that there is also another litigation pending between the parties before the Magistrate Court at Neyveli.

¶25

2/6

¶26

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶27

Tr.CMP.No.842 of 2024 and C.M.P.No.18724 of 2024

¶28

I am satisfied that the petitioner has made out a good ground for transferring H.M.O.P.No.1941 of 2023 from the file of I Additional Family Court, Chennai to the file of Subordinate Court, Neyveli.

¶29

At this juncture, it may be apposite to cite the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in N.C.V.Aishwarya vs. A.S.Saravana Karthik (MANU/SC/1211/2022 : 2022 Live Law (SC) 627) held at paras 9 and 10,

¶30

which reads as under:-

¶31

"9. The cardinal principle for exercise of power under section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure is that the ends of justice should demand the transfer of the suit, appeal or other proceeding. In matrimonial matters, wherever Courts are called upon to consider the plea of transfer, the Courts have to take into consideration the economic soundness of both the parties, the social strata of the spouses and their behavioural pattern, their standard of life prior to the marriage and subsequent thereto and the circumstances of both the parties in eking out their livelihood and under whose protective umbrella they are seeking their sustenance to life. Given the prevailing socio- economic paradigm in the Indian society, generally, it is the wife's convenience which must be looked at while considering transfer. (emphasis supplied)

¶32

10.Further, when two or more proceedings are pending in different Courts between the same parties which raise common question of fact and law, and when the decisions in the cases are interdependent, it is desirable that they should be tried together by the same Judge so as to avoid multiplicity in trial of the same issues and conflict of decisions”.

¶33

3/6

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

Tr.CMP.No.842 of 2024 and C.M.P.No.18724 of 2024

¶36

It is also relevant to refer the decision made by the Madurai

¶37

Bench of Madras High Court in TR.CMP(MD)No.108 of 2010 dated

¶38

03.03.2011, wherein, it has observed as below:-

¶39

''18.It is true that section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act, has been amended by insertion of proviso of (iii)(a) to section 19. Of Course, this amended section 19(iii)(a) gives special preference to the wife to file a petition or defending the case of the husband before the Court within whose jurisdiction she resides. The intention of the legislator is to safe-guard the interest and rights of the women, who are being subjected to harassment and cruelty. But this special preference conferred under section 19 (iii)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act shall not be used to wreck vengeance on the husband. There must be a justifiable cause to select the jurisdiction of the Court where she resides.''

¶40

Considering the proposition laid down in the judgment of the

¶41

Hon'ble Supreme Court in N.C.V.Aishwarya case cited supra and also considering the observation made by this Court, wherein, it has been held that convenience of the wife has to be considered, while transferring the case from one Court to another, there can be no impediment for allowing this petition as

¶42

prayed for.

¶43

4/6

¶44

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶45

Tr.CMP.No.842 of 2024 and C.M.P.No.18724 of 2024

¶46

Accordingly, this Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed

¶47

and the case in H.M.O.P.No.1941 of 2023 is withdrawn from the file of I Additional Family Court, Chennai and transferred to the file of the Subordinate Court, Neyveli. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no orders as to costs. Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶48

06.10.2025

¶49

Index : Yes/No Speaking order : Yes/No Neutral Case Citation : Yes/No gpa

¶50

¶51