Dismissed¶11

Aparna v. D.Praveen Kumar

Madras HC30 Jun 2026TR CMP(MD)/135/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Re-transfer petition under S.24 CPC refused - Madurai Bench, Madras High Court (K. Murali Shankar J.) - Tr.C.M.P.(MD) 135-136/2026; H.M.O.P.Nos.136 and 139 of 2024 stay at Principal Subordinate Court, Trichy; unchallenged transfer orders dated 06.03.2024 (Tr.C.M.P.(MD) 644 & 650 of 2023) attained finality; pending Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 / maintenance proceedings at Virudhunajar not a sufficient ground; fresh D.V.C./M.C. proceedings allegedly to harass respondent; husband physically disabled, Canara Bank Neyveli employee; petitions dismissed, no costs.

What did the court decide?

There is no statutory bar to filing a transfer petition seeking re-transfer of a case, but such a petition must be founded on valid and sufficient grounds. ¶8

Aparna Vs D.Praveen Kumar — Domestic Violence | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶11

Issue for consideration

Whether the matrimonial cases in H.M.O.P.Nos.136 of 2024 and 139 of 2024 pending on the file of the Subordinate Court, Trichy should be withdrawn and transferred to the file of the Subordinate Court, Virudhunagar. +1 more

¶prayer

Court's answer

The pendency of the petitioner's proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and the maintenance petition before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Virudhunagar cannot, by itself, constitute a ground for transferring the petition for divorce and the petition for restitution of conjugal rights to the Subordinate Court, Virudhunagar.

¶9

Ratio / Principle

There is no statutory bar to filing a transfer petition seeking re-transfer of a case, but such a petition must be founded on valid and sufficient grounds.

¶8

Key takeaways

The orders passed in Tr.C.M.P.(MD)Nos.644 of 2023 and 650 of 2023 (dated 06.03.2024) have attained finality because the petitioner, despite receiving notice, neither entered appearance nor challenged them.ratio¶8
The petitioner thereafter chose to institute fresh proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act and for maintenance, apparently with the sole intention of harassing the respondent.ratio¶9
In the earlier orders, this Court had specifically observed that the respondent/husband is a person with physical disability employed in Canara Bank, Neyveli (recited as context).

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Madurai Bench), K. Murali Shankar J. - Tr.C.M.P.(MD)Nos.135 and 136 of 2026 (pronounced 30.06.2026). Wife's petitions under Section 24 C.P.C. sought withdrawal and re-transfer of the divorce petition (renumbered H.M.O.P.No.136 of 2024) and the restitution-of-conjugal-rights petition (renumbered H.M.O.P.No.139 of 2024) from the Principal Subordinate Court, Trichy to the Subordinate Court, Virudhunagar, citing her fresh D.V.C.No.21 of 2025 and M.C.No.18 of 2025 and travel hardship. Held: a re-transfer petition faces no statutory bar but must rest on valid and sufficient grounds; the transfer orders dated 06.03.2024 in Tr.C.M.P.(MD)Nos.644 and 650 of 2023 were never challenged and have attained finality; mere pendency of Domestic Violence Act/maintenance proceedings cannot ground such a transfer - the fresh proceedings were apparently instituted with the sole intention of harassing the respondent; no other valid ground was assigned (earlier orders noted the husband's physical disability and employment in Canara Bank, Neyveli). Transfer petitions and connected C.M.P.s dismissed; no order as to costs.

¶1

Tr.C.M.P.(MD)Nos.135 and 136 of 2026

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

RESERVED ON : 23.06.2026

¶4

PRONOUNCED ON:30.06.2026

¶5

CORAM:

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR

¶7

Tr.C.M.P.(MD)Nos.135 and 136 of 2026 and C.M.P.(MD)Nos.2659 and 2660 of 2026

¶8

Aparna ... Petitioner/Respondent (in both petitions)

¶9

Vs.

¶10

D.Praveen Kumar ... Respondent/Petitioner (in both petitons)

¶11

COMMON Prayer : These Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petitions filed under Section 24 C.P.C., to withdraw the case in H.M.O.P.Nos.136 of 2024 and 139 of 2024 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Trichy and are to be transferred to the Subordinate Court, Virudhunagar.

¶12

For Petitioner (in both petitions) : Mr.S.Karthikeyan

¶13

For Respondent (in both petitions) : Ms.V.Rajeswari

¶14

1/8

¶15

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

¶16

Tr.C.M.P.(MD)Nos.135 and 136 of 2026

¶17

COMMON ORDER

¶18

These Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petitions are filed to withdraw the case in H.M.O.P.Nos.136 of 2024 and 139 of 2024 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Trichy and are to be transferred to the file of the Subordinate Court, Virudhunagar.

¶19

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

¶20

It is not in dispute that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 19.11.2018 as per the Hindu Rites and Customs and due to their wedlock, they were blessed with a female child namely Dharshana born on 08.02.2020 and that subsequently there arose misunderstandings and are living separately. It is also not in dispute that the respondent has earlier filed a petition in H.M.O.P.No.98 of 2022 seeking divorce and the same was pending on the file of the Subordinate Court, Neyveli, that the petitioner has also filed a petition in H.M.O.P.No.194 of 2022, seeking

¶21

2/8

¶22

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

¶23

Tr.C.M.P.(MD)Nos.135 and 136 of 2026

¶24

restitution of conjugal rights and the same was pending on the file of the Subordinate Court, Virudhunagar.

¶25

The petitioner as well as the respondent filed transfer applications in Tr.C.M.P.(MD)Nos.74 of 2023 and 129 of 2023 and this Court, vide common order dated 05.06.2023, allowed the petition in Tr.C.M.P. (MD)No.129 of 2023 filed by the petitioner/wife and dismissed the petition in Tr.C.M.P.(MD)No.74 of 2023 filed by the respondent/husband and transferred the case in H.M.O.P.No.98 of 2022 from the file of the Subordinate Court, Neyveli to the file of the Subordinate Court, Virudhunagar. After transfer, the said petition was renumbered as H.M.O.P.No.134 of 2023. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner initiated the proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act in D.V.C.No.24 of 2023 and also laid a maintenance claim in M.C.No.16 of 2022 and the same were pending on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.I, Virudhunagar and that subsequently, parties entered into a compromise and settlement has been arrived at Lok Adalat and on that basis, the cases in D.V.C.No.24 of 2023 and M.C.No.16 of 2022 came to be dismissed as withdrawn.

¶26

3/8

¶27

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

¶28

Tr.C.M.P.(MD)Nos.135 and 136 of 2026

¶29

It is also not in dispute that the respondent filed transfer petitions in Tr.C.M.P.(MD)Nos.644 of 2023 and 650 of 2023 seeking transfer of the petitiones in H.M.O.P.No.194 of 2022 and H.M.O.P.No.134 of 2023 pending on the file of the Subordinate Court, Virudhunagar and transfer the same to the file of the subordinate Court, Trichy and that since the petitioner, despite the receipt of notice, has failed to enter into appearance, this Court passed separate orders dated 06.03.2024, tranferring both the cases to the file of the Subordinate Court, Trichy. After the transfer, the cases were taken on file in H.M.O.P.Nos.136 of 2024 and 139 of 2024 and the same are pending on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Trichirappalli.

¶30

The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has initiated the proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act in D.V.C.No.21 of 2025 and also laid a maintenance claim in M.C.No.18 of 2025 and the same are pending on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Virudhunagar, that the petitioner is residing at Virudhunagar along with her child and that she finds it difficult to travel to Trichirappalli to attend the hearings.

¶31

4/8

¶32

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

¶33

Tr.C.M.P.(MD)Nos.135 and 136 of 2026

¶34

The learned Counsel for the respondent would submit that this Court, considering the request made by the respondent transferred both the petitions to the file of the Subordinate Court, Trichirappalli, that the petitioner has not challenged the orders passed in the transfer petitions and that therefore, she is now not entitled to seek transfer of the said cases again to the Subordinate Court, Virudhunagar.

¶35

No doubt, there is no statutory bar to filing a transfer petition seeking re-transfer of a case. However, such a petition must be founded on valid and sufficient grounds. Moreover, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, despite having received notice in Tr.C.M.P.(MD) Nos.644 of 2023 and 650 of 2023, the petitioner did not choose to enter appearance before this Court. Since the orders passed therein have not been challenged by the petitioner, they have attained finality.

¶36

No doubt, the petitioner's subsequent proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and the petition

¶37

5/8

¶38

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

¶39

Tr.C.M.P.(MD)Nos.135 and 136 of 2026

¶40

for maintenance are pending before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Virudhunagar. However, that circumstance, by itself, cannot constitute a ground for transferring the petition for divorce and the petition for restitution of conjugal rights to the file of the Subordinate Court, Virudhunagar. Even according to the petitioner, the earlier proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act and the maintenance case were withdrawn pursuant to the settlement arrived at between the parties before the Lok Adalat and after the matrimonial proceedings had already been transferred to the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Tiruchirappalli. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondent, the petitioner has thereafter chosen to institute fresh proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act and for maintenance, apparently with the sole intention of harassing the respondent.

¶41

In the earlier orders passed by this Court, it has been specifically observed that the respondent/husband is a person with physical disability and is employed in Canara Bank, Neyveli. The petitioner has not assigned any other valid reason or sufficient ground warranting the re-transfer of the above matrimonial proceedings to the file of the Subordinate Court,

¶42

6/8

¶43

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

¶44

Tr.C.M.P.(MD)Nos.135 and 136 of 2026

¶45

Virudhunagar. This Court, therefore, concludes that the present Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petitions are devoid of merits and are liable to be dismissed.

¶46

In the result, the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petitions are dismissed. Consequently, the connected Civil Miscellaneous Petitions are also dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶47

30.06.2026

¶48

NCC :yes/No Index :yes/No Internet:yes/No

¶49

SSL

¶50

¶51

The Subordinate Court, Trichy.

¶52

2.The Section Officer, VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶53

7/8

¶54

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

¶55

Tr.C.M.P.(MD)Nos.135 and 136 of 2026

¶56

K.MURALI SHANKAR,J.

¶57

SSL

¶58

Order made in Tr.C.M.P.(MD)Nos.135 and 136 of 2026 and C.M.P.(MD)Nos.2659 and 2660 of 2026

¶59

30.06.2026

¶60

8/8

¶61

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

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Prior proceeding
Marriage between the parties solemnized on 19.11.2018 as per Hindu rites and customs; subsequently misunderstandings arose and the parties are living separately.¶3
Prior proceeding
Female child Dharshana born of the wedlock on 08.02.2020.¶3
Prior proceeding
Respondent earlier filed H.M.O.P.No.98 of 2022 seeking divorce, pending on the file of the Subordinate Court, Neyveli.¶3
Prior proceeding
Petitioner filed H.M.O.P.No.194 of 2022 seeking restitution of conjugal rights, pending on the file of the Subordinate Court, Virudhunagar.¶3
Prior proceeding
First transfer round - common order dated 05.06.2023 in Tr.C.M.P.(MD)Nos.74 and 129 of 2023: petition of petitioner/wife (No.129) allowed, petition of respondent/husband (No.74) dismissed; H.M.O.P.No.98 of 2022 transferred from Neyveli to Virudhunagar.¶4
Prior proceeding
After transfer, the divorce petition was renumbered as H.M.O.P.No.134 of 2023.¶4
Prior proceeding
Petitioner initiated D.V.C.No.24 of 2023 under the Domestic Violence Act and maintenance claim M.C.No.16 of 2022, pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.I, Virudhunagar.¶4
Prior proceeding
Parties entered into a compromise at Lok Adalat; on that basis D.V.C.No.24 of 2023 and M.C.No.16 of 2022 were dismissed as withdrawn.¶4
Prior proceeding
Second transfer round - respondent filed Tr.C.M.P.(MD)Nos.644 and 650 of 2023 seeking transfer of H.M.O.P.No.194 of 2022 and H.M.O.P.No.134 of 2023 from Virudhunagar to Trichy.¶5
Prior proceeding
Petitioner failed to enter appearance despite notice; separate orders dated 06.03.2024 transferred both cases to the file of the Subordinate Court, Trichy.¶5
Prior proceeding
After transfer the cases were taken on file as H.M.O.P.Nos.136 of 2024 and 139 of 2024, pending before the Principal Subordinate Court, Trichirappalli.¶5
Prior proceeding
Per petitioner's counsel: fresh proceedings D.V.C.No.21 of 2025 and M.C.No.18 of 2025 pending before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Virudhunagar.¶6
Prior proceeding
Per petitioner's counsel: petitioner resides at Virudhunagar with her child and finds it difficult to travel to Trichirappalli for hearings.¶6
Prior proceeding
Per respondent's counsel: petitioner did not challenge the orders in the earlier transfer petitions and therefore is not entitled to seek re-transfer to Virudhunagar.¶7

Aparna v. D.Praveen Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aparna v. D.Praveen Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Managing Director Vs Ramakrishnan

Selvaraj, Vs Malliga Jothi alias Jothi Mallammal

The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Ramkumar

The Assistant Director of Animal Husbandry Vs Dinesh Kumar

A.Sujitha Vs T.Jeyaraman

The Branch Manager Vs K.Srinivasan