Allowed¶36

Suganya v. Chandru

Madras HC1 Apr 2026TR CMP/369/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Transfer of matrimonial/divorce trial for wife's convenience under Section 151 CPC; Madras High Court TR CMP No. 369 of 2025; HMOP 68/2024 moved from Sub Court Musiri (Trichy) to Sub Court Kangeyam (Tiruppur); wife's travel difficulty with four-year-old child; linked maintenance case M.C.No.9 of 2024 Kangeyam; Supreme Court precedents Mona Aresh Goel AIR 2000 SC 3512 (1), Geeta Heera 2000 (10) SCC 304, Lalita A. Ranga (2009) 9 SCC 355; respondent raised no objection; eight-month disposal direction; no costs; connected CMP.No.8263 of 2026 closed.

What did the court decide?

Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition allowed; H.M.O.P.No.68 of 2024 withdrawn from the Subordinate Court, Musiri and transferred to the file of the Sub Court, Kangeyam, to be disposed of preferably within eight months; no costs; connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition (CMP.No.8263 of 2026) closed.

Suganya Vs Chandru — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether the Trial in HMOP No.68 of 2024 on the file of the Sub Court, Musiri, Trichy District should be withdrawn and transferred to the Sub Court, Kangayam, Tiruppur District, the petitioner/wife finding it difficult to travel from Kangeyam to Musiri for the hearings.

¶12

Court's answer

The petitioner/wife's request to transfer H.M.O.P.No.68 of 2024, pending before the Subordinate Court, Musiri, to the Sub Court, Kangeyam appears to be based on justifiable cause, and accordingly the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed.

¶36

Ratio / Principle

H.M.O.P.No.68 of 2024 pending on the file of the Subordinate Court, Musiri is withdrawn and transferred to the file of the Sub Court, Kangeyam.

¶36

Key takeaways

The Subordinate Court, Kangeyam shall take all effective steps to dispose of HMOP.No.68 of 2024 preferably within eight months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.ratio¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Madras (R. Kalaimathi, J.; decided 01-04-2026) allowed TR CMP No. 369 of 2025 (with connected CMP.No.8263 of 2026) filed under Section 151 C.P.C. by the wife, Suganya, seeking withdrawal and transfer of the divorce trial H.M.O.P.No.68 of 2024 from the Subordinate Court, Musiri (Trichy District) to the Sub Court, Kangeyam (Tiruppur District). She resided at Kangeyam with her four-year-old child, had a pending maintenance case (M.C.No.9 of 2024) before the Judicial Magistrate, Kangeyam, and pleaded difficulty in travelling to Musiri for hearings; counsel for the respondent-husband raised no serious objection. Reciting the Supreme Court's settled transfer-petition principles in Mona Aresh Goel vs. Aresh Satya Goel (AIR 2000 SC 3512 (1)), Geeta Heera Vs. Harish Chander Heera (2000 (10) SCC 304) and Lalita A. Ranga Vs. Ajay Champalal Ranja ((2009) 9 SCC 355), and noting the husband resides at Musiri while the wife resides at Kangeyam, the Court found the request to rest on justifiable cause, allowed the petition, transferred the HMOP to the Sub Court, Kangeyam, directed its disposal preferably within eight months, and closed the connected CMP with no costs.

¶1

TR CMP No. 369 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 01-04-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE R. KALAIMATHI

¶6

TR CMP No. 369 of 2025 & CMP.No.8263 of 2026

¶7

Suganya W/o. Dhanapal, Neikadai Lane, Near Mangai Beauty Parlour, Thiru Vi.Ka. St, Tiruppur Road, Kangayam, Tiruppur Dt.

¶8

..Petitioner(s)

¶9

¶10

Chandru S/o. Mani, No.1/55, Kudi Street, Muthampatti, Mettupatti Post, Musiri Taluk, Trichy Dt.

¶11

..Respondent(s)

¶12

Prayer : Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Section 151 of C.P.C. to withdraw and transfer the Trial in HMOP No.68 of 2024 on the file of the Sub Court, Musiri, Trichy District to Sub Court, Kangayam, Tiruppur District.

¶13

For Petitioner(s): Mr.C.Prakasam

¶14

For Respondent(s): Mr.Y.Kaja Navas

¶15

__________ Page1 of 5

¶16

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

¶17

TR CMP No. 369 of 2025

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.

¶20

The petitioner is the respondent / wife in H.M.O.P.No.68 of 2024 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Musiri which is filed for an order of divorce. The petitioner has filed Maintenance case in M.C.No.9 of 2024 before the Judicial Magistrate, Kangeyam claiming maintenance for herself and for her minor son. She has filed this Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition seeking to transfer the said H.M.O.P. to the file of Sub Court, Kangeyam by stating that she finds it difficult to travel from Kangeyam to Musiri for all the hearings.

¶21

Reiterating the said contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner would further add that she is living in her parents’ home along with her four years old child at Kangeyam and she finds it difficult to travel from Kangeyam to Musiri for all the hearing dates.

¶22

Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent does not have any serious objection in ordering the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition.

¶23

The principles regarding transfer petitions, more specifically in the matters of matrimonial cases are well settled by the Honâ’ble Supreme Court in the following cases:-

¶24

__________ Page2 of 5

¶25

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

¶26

TR CMP No. 369 of 2025

¶27

i. In AIR 2000 SC 3512 (1) (Mona Aresh Goel

¶28

vs. Aresh Satya Goel), when the wife pleaded that she was unable to bear the travelling expenses and even to travel alone and stay at Bombay, the Supreme Court ordered transfer of proceedings.

¶29

ii. In 2000 (10) SCC 304 (Geeta Heera Vs. Harish Chander Heera), the Honâ ble Supreme Court has held that where the petitioner's wife has pleaded lack of money, the same has to be considered.

¶30

iii. In Lalita A. Ranga Vs. Ajay Champalal Ranja reported in (2009) 9 SCC 355 , wherein the wife, who was having small child and she was finding it difficult to travel from Jaipur to Bombay, and the Honâ ble Apex Court accepting her request ordered the transfer petition in favour of the wife transferring the transfer petition from Family Court at Bandra in Mumbai to the Family Court at Jaipur.”

¶31

On perusal of petition filed H.M.O.P.No.68 of 2024, it appears that petitioner/husband is the resident of Musiri, Trichy District and the respondent/wife is resident of Kangeyam.

¶32

In consideration of the afore stated details request of the petitioner/wife to transfer H.M.O.P.No.68 of 2024 which is pending before the

¶33

Page3 of 5

¶34

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

¶35

TR CMP No. 369 of 2025

¶36

Subordinate Court, Musiri appears to be based on justifiable cause and accordingly, this Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. Sequel to this, H.M.O.P.No.68 of 2024 pending on the file of the Subordinate Court, Musiri is withdrawn and transferred to the file of the Sub Court, Kangeyam. The Subordinate Court, Kangeyam shall take all effective steps to dispose of the HMOP.No.68 of 2024 preferably within a period of eight months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. No Costs. Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶37

01-04-2026

¶38

Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No

¶39

vrc

¶40

¶41