Dismissed¶30

C. Yespee v. R. Monisha

Madras HC5 Jun 2025TR CMP(MD)/287/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 24 CPC transfer petition; matrimonial dispute; wife's convenience predominant consideration; restitution of conjugal rights; divorce; joint trial; H.M.O.P.No.71 of 2025 Family Court Theni; Tr.C.M.P.No.71 of 2025; H.M.O.P.No.137 of 2024 Sub Court Sattur; Subordinate Judge Sattur Virudhunagar District; 100 kms travel; Allinagaram Theni Town domicile; N.C.V.Aishwarya v. A.S.Saravana Karthik Sha 2022 Live Law (SC) 627; Tr.CMP.(MD)No.287 of 2025; C.M.P.(MD)No.7355 of 2025; Madurai Bench Madras High Court; K.K. Ramakrishnan J.; dismissed; no order as to costs; 05.06.2025.

What did the court decide?

In matrimonial disputes, whenever a transfer petition is filed, the convenience of the wife should be predominantly looked into and given preference. ¶26

C. Yespee Vs R. Monisha — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether the transfer petition under Section 24 CPC should be allowed, i.e., whether H.M.O.P.No.71 of 2025 pending before the learned Judge, Family Court, Theni District should be withdrawn and transferred to the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Sattur, Virudhunagar District to facilitate a joint trial.

¶9

Court's answer

In matrimonial disputes, whenever a transfer petition is filed, the convenience of the wife should be predominantly looked into and given preference.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

Taking into account the inconvenience expressed by the respondent-wife in attending every hearing at Sattur — a journey of more than 2 hours, 100 kms from her domicile at Allinagaram, Theni Town, involving huge expense — the Court was not inclined to allow the transfer petition.

¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition under Section 24 CPC filed by the husband (C.Yespee) seeking withdrawal of H.M.O.P.No.71 of 2025 — the wife's proceeding for restitution of conjugal rights (recorded in the body as Tr.C.M.P.No.71 of 2025) pending before the Family Court, Theni District — and its transfer to the file of the Subordinate Judge, Sattur, Virudhunagar District, to enable a joint trial with the husband's divorce petition H.M.O.P.No.137 of 2024 pending before the Sub Court, Sattur. Relying on N.C.V.Aishwarya v. A.S.Saravana Karthik Sha, 2022 Live Law (SC) 627, for the principle that in matrimonial transfer petitions the wife's convenience must be predominantly looked into, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court (K.K. Ramakrishnan, J.) held that, considering the overall facts and the inconvenience expressed by the respondent-wife in travelling more than 2 hours and 100 kms from her domicile at Allinagaram, Theni Town, to attend hearings at Sattur, incurring huge expense, the Court was not inclined to allow the petition. The transfer miscellaneous petition was dismissed with no order as to costs, and the connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition (C.M.P.(MD)No.7355 of 2025) was closed. Decision dated 05.06.2025.

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 05.06.2025

¶2

CORAM

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN

¶4

Tr.CMP.(MD)No.287 of 2025 and C.M.P.(MD)No.7355 of 2025

C.Yespee

R.Monisha

... Petitioner

Vs. ... Respondent

Prayer : Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to withdraw the case in H.M.O.P.No.71 of 2025, pending on the file of the learned Judge, Family Court, Theni District and to transfer the same to the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Sattur Virudhunagar District in order to facilitate the parties to have a joint trial.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.C.M.Arumugam

¶11

For Respondent : Mr.K.Muthu Ganesa Pandian

¶12

ORDER

¶13

The present Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed to withdraw the case bearing H.M.O.P.No.71 of 2025, pending on the file of the learned Judge, Family Court, Theni District and to transfer the same to the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Sattur Virudhunagar District in order to facilitate the parties to have a joint trial.

¶14

Page No 1 of 5

¶15

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

¶16

The petitioner is the husband and the respondent is the wife. The

¶17

marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 01.06.2022 at NPM Mahal, Theni District, as per the Hindu Rites and Customs. During their wedlock, a female child was born on 19.03.2023.

¶18

Due to some matrimonial discord, the parties have separated. Therefore, the petitioner/husband initiated a proceeding in H.M.O.P.No.137 of 2024, on the file of the Sub Court, Sattur, seeking divorce. Thereafter the respondent/wife has filed Tr.C.M.P.No.71 of 2025, on the file of the Family Court, Theni for restitution of conjugal rights.

¶19

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

¶20

counsel for the respondent and perused the materials available on records.

¶21

In the case of N.C.V.Aishwarya Vs. A.S.Saravana Karthik Sha reported in 2022 Live Law (SC) 627 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has dealt with the position generally, that it is the wife's convenience, which must be looked into while considering the transfer petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the relevant passage is extracted hereunder :-

¶22

“ The cardinal principle for exercise of power under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure is that the ends of justice should

¶23

Page No 2 of 5

¶24

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

¶25

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 socioeconomic paradigm in the Indian society, generally, it is the wife's convenience which must be looked at while considering transfer.", the bench observed. ”

¶26

It is also well settled proposition of law that whenever a transfer petition is filed in matrimonial disputes, the convenience of the wife should be predominantly looked into, and the wife’s convenience shall be given preference.

¶27

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and also taking into account of the inconvenience expressed by the respondent in attending every court hearing, by travelling more than 2 hour journey to reach the learned Subordinate Judge Sattur, Virudhunagar District situated 100 kms away from her Domicile, namely, Allinagaram, Theni Town, Theni District, incurring huge expense, this Court is not inclined to allow the petition.

¶28

Page No 3 of 5

¶29

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

¶30

Accordingly, this transfer miscellaneous petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶31

05.06.2025 (1/2)

¶32

Index:Yes/No Speaking Order :Yes/No Neutral Citation:Yes/No rgm

¶33

¶34