Allowed

S.Sharmila Sudharshini v. J.Dhanesh

Madras HC21 Jul 2025TR CMP(MD)/329/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Wife sought transfer of husband's divorce petition from Nagercoil to Trichy, citing 375 km distance and difficulty travelling with her minor child. Following Supreme Court precedent that a wife's convenience predominates in matrimonial transfer petitions, the court allowed the transfer.

What did the court decide?

Divorce case I.D.O.P.No.30 of 2025 transferred from Family Court, Nagercoil to Family Court, Trichy; records within four weeks.

S.Sharmila Sudharshini Vs J.Dhanesh — Matrimonial and Divorce | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶2

DATED : 21.07.2025

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN Tr.CMP.(MD)No.329 of 2025 and C.M.P.(MD)No.8875 of 2025

¶5

S.Sharmila Sudharsini .. Petitioner

¶6

Vs.

¶7

J.Dhanesh .. Respondent

¶8

Prayer : Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to withdraw the case in I.D.O.P.No.30 of 2025 on the file of the Family Court, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District and transfer the same to the Family Court, Trichy.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.H.Elango For Respondent : No Appearance

¶10

Page 1 of 7

¶11

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

¶12

ORDER

¶13

The present Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed to withdraw the case in I.D.O.P.No.30 of 2025 on the file of the Family Court, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District, and transfer the same to the file of the Family Court, Trichy.

¶14

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

¶15

The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 28.10.2016 at Krishna Inn Marriage Hall, Vadasery, as per the Christian Rites and Customs. During their wedlock, one female child, was born on 29.05.2019.

¶16

Due to some matrimonial discord, the parties have separated.

¶17

Therefore, the respondent/husband initiated a proceedings in I.D.O.P.No.30 of 2025, before the Family Court, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District, seeking divorce.

¶18

Page 2 of 7

¶19

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

¶20

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/wife submits

¶21

that now the petitioner is living in Trichy District with her minor child. The distance between the petitioner's domicile to the Family Court, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District, is around 375 Km, and being a lady with a minor child, she finds it difficult to travel such a long distance for attending every Court hearing. Hence, he seeks to allow this petition as prayed for.

¶22

Eventhough, the respondent's name was printed in the cause

¶23

list, none appeared for the respondent either in person or through counsel.

¶24

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the materials available on records.

¶25

In the case of N.C.V.Aishwarya Vs. A.S.Saravana Karthik Sha

¶26

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 :

¶27

Page 3 of 7

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

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.

¶31

Page 4 of 7

¶32

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

¶33

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and also taking into account of the inconvenience expressed by the petitioner in attending every court hearing with her child by travelling an 5 ½ hour journey to reach the Family Court, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District, situated 375 km away from her domicile, incurring huge expense, this court inclines to allow the petition.

¶34

The learned District Judge, Family Court, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District, is hereby directed to transfer the entire records pertaining to the case in I.D.O.P.No.30 of 2025, to the file of the learned District Judge, Family Court, Trichy, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and on receipt of such records, the learned learned District Judge, Family Court, Trichy, is directed to take the case on file and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law.

¶35

Page 5 of 7

¶36

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

¶37

Accordingly, the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition stands allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected Civil Miscellaneous Petitions is closed.

¶38

21.07.2025

¶39

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

¶40

¶41

1.The Family Court, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.

¶42

2.The Family Court, Trichy.

¶43

Page 6 of 7

¶44

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

¶45

K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

¶46

dss

¶47

Tr.CMP.(MD)No.329 of 2025 and C.M.P.(MD)No.8875 of 2025

¶48

21.07.2025

¶49

Page 7 of 7

¶50

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

S.Sharmila Sudharshini v. J.Dhanesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Sharmila Sudharshini v. J.Dhanesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T.Rengarajan Vs M.Venkatesan

Divya Bharathi Vs Shanthi

M/S. National Insurance Company Limited Vs Thangamalar

T.Vijaya Karthika Vs M.Tamilselvam

The Superintendent of Police, Vs Shri.Mohammed Noohu

Pothuraja Vs Arulmigu Maalai Kovil, Usilampatti Village