Allowed

J.Fathima Rosmy v. Sangili Raja @ Vincent Raja

Madras HC13 Jun 2025TR CMP(MD)/713/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Wife sought transfer of her husband's restitution of conjugal rights petition from Family Court, Theni, to Principal District Court, Kanchipuram, citing a 450 km journey and her pending divorce petition there. Relying on the wife's-convenience principle under Section 24 CPC, the High Court allowed transfer.

What did the court decide?

Transfer of I.D.O.P.No.388 of 2023 from Family Court, Theni, to Principal District Court, Kanchipuram; records within four weeks; to be tried with I.D.O.P.No.49 of 2023.

J.Fathima Rosmy Vs Sangili Raja @ Vincent Raja — Matrimonial and Divorce | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶2

DATED : 13.06.2025

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN Tr.CMP.(MD)No.713 of 2024 and C.M.P.(MD)No.17146 of 2024

J.Fathima Rosmy

.. Petitioner

Vs.

Sangili Raja (a) Vincent Raja

¶9

.. Respondent

¶10

Prayer : Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to withdraw the petition in I.D.O.P.No.388 of 2023 on the file of the Famil Court, Theni, and to transfer the same to the file of the Principal District Court, Kanchipuram.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.S.M.Arun Kumar For Respondent : No Appearance

¶12

Page 1 of 7

¶13

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

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The present Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed to withdraw the petition in I.D.O.P.No.388 of 2023 on the file of the Family

¶16

Court, Theni, and to transfer the same to the file of the Principal District Court, Kanchipuram.

¶17

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

¶18

The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 23.01.2019 in Bethesda A.G.Church at Vadakarai, Periyakulam, Theni District, as per the Christian Rites and Customs.

¶19

Due to some matrimonial discord, the parties have separated. Therefore, the petitioner/wife initiated a proceeding in I.D.O.P.No.49 of 2023 for dissolution of the marriage, on the file of the Principal District Court, Kanchipuram. After that the respondent/husband initiated the proceeding in I.D.O.P.No.388 of 2023, on the file of the Family Court, Theni, seeking restitution of conjugal rights.

¶20

Page 2 of 7

¶21

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

¶22

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/wife submits

¶23

that his client is living in Serppananjseri Navalur, Kundrathur Taluk, Kanchipuram District and she was taken care of by her parents. The distance between the petitioner's residence to Theni, is around 450 Kms, and being a lady, she finds it difficult to travel such a long distance for attending every Court hearing. She has also filed I.D.O.P.No.49 of 2023 on the file of the Principal District Court, Kanchipuram. Hence, she seeks transfer of proceeding in I.D.O.P.No.388 of 2023 from the file of the Family Court, Theni, to the file of the Principal District Court, Kanchipuram.

¶24

Even though notice was served upon the respondent, he did not

¶25

chose to appear before this Court either in person or through Counsel.

¶26

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the learned counsel for

¶27

the petitioner and perused the materials available on records.

¶28

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

¶29

reported in 2022 Live Law (SC) 627 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has dealt

¶30

Page 3 of 7

¶31

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

¶32

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 :

¶33

“ 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. ”

¶34

It is also well settled proposition of law that whenever a

¶35

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.

¶36

Page 4 of 7

¶37

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

¶38

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, by travelling 12 hours journey to reach the Family Court, Theni, situated 450 kms away from her Domicile, namely, Serppananjseri Navalur, Kundrathur Taluk, Kanchipuram District, incurring huge expense, this court inclines to allow the petition.

¶39

The learned District Judge, Family Court, Theni District, is hereby directed to transfer the entire records pertaining to the case, in I.D.O.P.No.388 of 2023, to the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Kanchipuram District, 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 Principal District Judge, Kanchipuram District, is directed to take the case on file, try the same along with I.D.O.P.No.49 of 2023 already pending on his file, filed by the wife and dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law.

¶40

Page 5 of 7

¶41

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

¶42

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

¶43

13.06.2025

¶44

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

¶45

¶46

1.The District Judge, Family Court, Theni, Theni District. 2.The Principal District Judge, Kanchipuram.

¶47

Page 6 of 7

¶48

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

¶49

K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

¶50

¶51

Tr.CMP.(MD)No.713 of 2024 and C.M.P.(MD)No.17146 of 2024

¶52

13.06.2025

¶53

Page 7 of 7

¶54

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

J.Fathima Rosmy v. Sangili Raja @ Vincent Raja

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

J.Fathima Rosmy v. Sangili Raja @ Vincent Raja

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

K.Ramalakshmi @ Nandhini Vs N.Rengaraj @ Tenzing

M.J.Fowziah Begam Vs J.Mohamed Abu

Shoba Vs Sirajudeen

K.Meena Vs R.Vidyalakshmi

J. Sahayamary Vs Mahalakshmi

S. Saranya Vs S. Mahesh Kannan