Poorana Karthigayani Vs Sankar Pandi

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶2

DATED : 14.07.2025

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN Tr.CMP.(MD)No.356 of 2025 and C.M.P.(MD)No.9784 of 2025

¶5

Poorana Karthigayani Petitioner/Respondent

¶6

Vs.

¶7

Mr.Sankar Pandi .. Respondent/Petitioner

¶8

Prayer : Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petitions are filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to withdraw the case in H.M.O.P.No.140 of 2025 on the file of the Family Court, Dindigul and transfer the same to the file of the Sub Court, Ambattur.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.Manoharan

¶10

For Respondent : No Appearance

¶11

Page 1 of 6

¶12

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

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The present Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petitions have been filed to withdraw the case in H.M.O.P.No.140 of 2025 on the file of the Family Court, Dindigul and transfer the same to the to the file of the Sub Court, Ambattur.

¶15

The petitioner is the wife and the respondent is the husband. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 30.01.2021 at Arulmigu Srinivasa Perumal in Dindigul District, as per the Hindu Rites and Customs. During their wedlock, one female child, was born on 21.07.2021.

¶16

Due to some matrimonial discord, the parties have separated. Therefore, the petitioner/wife initiated a proceedings in H.M.O.P.No.327 of 2024, before the Sub Court, Ambattur, seeking divorce and the respondent/husband filed a petition in H.M.O.P.No.140 of 2025 before the Family Court, Dindigul, seeking Restitution of Conjugal Rights.

¶17

Page 2 of 6

¶18

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

¶19

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/wife submits

¶20

that now the petitioner is living in Thiruvallur District with her minor child. The distance between the petitioner's domicile to Dindigul is around 424 Kms, and being a lady with a minor child, she finds it difficult to travel such a long distance for attending every Court hearing. Hence, she seeks transfer of proceeding in H.M.O.P.No.140 of 2024 from the file of the Family Court, Dindigul to the file of the Sub Court, Ambattur.

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the learned counsel for

¶24

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

¶27

Page 3 of 6

¶28

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

¶29

Code of Civil Procedure and the relevant passage is extracted hereunder :

¶30

“ 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. ”

¶31

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.

¶32

Page 4 of 6

¶33

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

¶34

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 7 ½ hour journey to reach the Family Court, Dindigul, situated 424 km away from her domicile, incurring huge expense, this court inclines to allow the petition.

¶35

The learned District Judge, Family Court, Dindigul, is hereby directed to transfer the entire records pertaining to the case in H.M.O.P.No. 140 of 2025, to the file of the learned District Judge, Sub Court, Ambattur, 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, Sub Court, Ambattur, is directed to take the both cases on file and dispose of the cases as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law.

¶36

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

¶37

14.07.2025

¶38

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

¶39

Page 5 of 6

¶40

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

¶41

K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

¶42

dss