Dismissed¶31

M.Haseena v. J.Godfrey Rajasingh

Madras HC3 Jun 2026TR CMP/419/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court, T.V. ThamilSelvi J., 03-06-2026, TR CMP No. 419 of 2026 with CMP.No.12196 of 2026: Section 24 CPC transfer petition by wife dismissed; transfer of part-heard divorce suit SMOP.No.27 of 2025 (adultery ground) from Family Court Tirunelveli to Chennai refused for want of valid or sufficient ground; petitioner's conduct and FIR Crime No.463 of 2023 (New Washermenpet Police Station) admissions relied upon; trial court directed to conclude case within twelve weeks without unnecessary adjournments; advocate-litigant bound by same procedural requirements; no costs.

What did the court decide?

Having regard to the conduct of the petitioner and the material placed before it, the Court was not inclined to grant the relief of transfer and found no valid or sufficient ground to transfer the proceedings from the Family Court, Tirunelveli to Chennai.

M.Haseena Vs J.Godfrey Rajasingh — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the Transfer Petition under Section 24 CPC seeking withdrawal of S.M.O.P.No.27 of 2025 (the husband's divorce suit, part-heard) from the Family Court, Tirunelveli and its transfer to the Family Court, Chennai should be granted, the petitioner pleading inability to travel nearly 600 kilometres.

¶13

Court's answer

¶30

Ratio / Principle

From the contents of the FIR itself, the Court found it evident that the petitioner admitted her relationship with Gujral and had stated that she had obtained a divorce from the respondent.

¶29

Key takeaways

Since S.M.O.P.No.27 of 2025 is pending and at the stage of trial before the Family Court, Tirunelveli, the learned Trial Judge was directed to dispose of it within twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.ratio¶36
The learned Trial Judge was further directed not to grant any unnecessary adjournments or indulgence to the petitioner/respondent in S.M.O.P.No.27 of 2025 and to proceed with the matter in accordance with law within the stipulated time.ratio¶38
Observation on the petitioner's status: although she is an Advocate by profession, before the Court she stands only as a litigant and is bound by the same procedural requirements applicable to all parties.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Transfer Petition (Section 24 CPC) - Dismissed. The petitioner-wife, respondent in S.M.O.P.No.27 of 2025 (husband's divorce suit on the ground of adultery, part-heard and posted for trial) pending before the Family Court, Tirunelveli, sought transfer of the proceedings to the Family Court, Chennai, pleading inability to travel nearly 600 kilometres. The respondent/husband appeared in person and produced FIR in Crime No.463 of 2023 of New Washermenpet Police Station, registered on the petitioner's own complaint against M.C.Gujral (second respondent in the divorce suit); perusal of the FIR showed the petitioner's statements that she is an Advocate by profession, that she had obtained divorce from the respondent, and that she had married Gujral and lived with him. Holding that, given her conduct and the material on record, there was no valid or sufficient ground for transfer, the Court dismissed the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition. Directing expeditious trial, the learned Trial Judge was told to dispose of S.M.O.P.No.27 of 2025 within twelve weeks of receipt of the order, without granting unnecessary adjournments or indulgence to the petitioner/respondent, it being observed that an Advocate before the Court stands only as a litigant bound by the same procedural requirements as all parties. No costs; connected miscellaneous petition (CMP.No.12196 of 2026) closed.

¶1

TR CMP No. 419 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 03-06-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

¶6

TR CMP No. 419 of 2026 and CMP.No.12196 of 2026

¶7

M.Haseena D/o.Mohammed Ali, No.31/50, First Floor, Cherian Nagat second street, New Washermanpet, Chennai-600 081.

¶8

..Petitioner(s)

¶9

¶10

J.Godfrey Rajasingh S/o.G.Jesudian Babu, No.9, Shenbhagam Nagar, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli-627 002.

¶11

M.C.Gujral S/o.M.Chidambaram, No.40, East Street, Vadakanandal P.O., Chinna Salem Taluk, Kallakurichi-606 207.

¶12

..Respondent(s)

¶13

Prayer: Transfer Petition filed under section 24 of CPC., to withdraw the cases in SMOP.No.27 of 2025 pending on the file of the Honble Family Court, Tirunelveli District and transfer the same to the Honble family Court, Chennai District and pass any such orders or further order as may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances and thus render justice.

¶14

For Petitioner(s): Ms.A.Niyamath Nisha for L.Ramu

¶15

Page1 of 6

¶16

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

¶17

TR CMP No. 419 of 2026

¶18

Mr.J.Godfrey Rajasingh Party in person

¶19

For Respondent(s):

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The revision petitioner is the respondent in S.M.O.P.No.27 of 2025 pending before the Family Court, Tirunelveli. The said petition was filed by the respondent/husband seeking divorce on the ground of adultery. The matter is now posted for trial and has become a part-heard case. At this stage, the petitioner seeks transfer of the proceedings from Tirunelveli to Chennai on the ground that she is unable to travel nearly 600 kilometres from Chennai to Tirunelveli to attend the Court proceedings. Hence, she has filed the present Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition.

¶22

Notice was served and the respondent/husband appeared in person. He submitted that the petitioner was leading an immoral life with several persons and that, on one occasion, she left the matrimonial home after handing over their two children, namely the son and daughter, to his care and custody. He further submitted that thereafter she married one Gujral, who has been impleaded as the second respondent in the divorce proceedings. According to him, he subsequently came to know that disputes had arisen even between the petitioner and the said Gujral, pursuant to which she lodged a complaint against him. Based on the said complaint, an FIR was registered in Crime No.463 of 2023, on the file of New Washermenpet Police Station. A copy of the FIR was

¶23

Page2 of 6

¶24

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

¶25

TR CMP No. 419 of 2026

¶26

also produced before this Court.

¶27

3.On perusal of the FIR, it is seen that in the complaint given by the petitioner herself, she has stated that she is an Advocate by profession. She has also admitted her marriage with the respondent and the birth of their two children. Further, she has stated that after obtaining divorce from the respondent, she married one Gujral and lived with him, and that disputes subsequently arose between them. It was only thereafter that the complaint came to be lodged.

¶28

Thus, from the contents of the FIR itself, it is evident that the petitioner

¶29

has admitted her relationship with the said Gujral and has also stated that she had obtained a divorce from the respondent.

¶30

Having regard to the conduct of the petitioner and the material placed before this Court, this Court is not inclined to grant the relief of transfer as sought for. This Court does not find any valid or sufficient ground to transfer the proceedings from the Family Court, Tirunelveli to Chennai.

¶31

Accordingly, this Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed.

¶32

Considering that the SMOP.No.27 of 2025 is already pending before the Family Court, Tirunelveli and is at the stage of trial, the learned Trial Judge is directed

¶33

Page3 of 6

¶34

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

¶35

TR CMP No. 419 of 2026

¶36

to dispose of the same within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶37

The conduct of the petitioner indicates that she is not inclined to cooperate with the proceedings and is attempting to take advantage of her status as an Advocate. However, before the Court, she stands only as a litigant and is bound by the same procedural requirements applicable to all parties.

¶38

Therefore, the learned Trial Judge shall not grant any unnecessary adjournments or indulgence to the petitioner/respondent in the SMOP.No.27 of 2025 and shall proceed with the matter in accordance with law and dispose the same within the time stipulated above. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶39

03-06-2026

¶40

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

¶41

MPA

¶42

__________ Page4 of 6

¶43

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

¶44

TR CMP No. 419 of 2026