In matrimonial disputes, the convenience of the wife is given greater priority unless strong reasons for transfer are demonstrated.

COMMON ORDER

Heard.

2. Tr.C.M.P.No.1271 of 2025 is filed by the husband to withdraw H.M.O.P. No.623 of 2025 pending on the file of the Family Court, Puducherry and transfer the same to the file of the Principal Sub Court, Chengalpattu.

3. Tr.C.M.P.No.1118 of 2025 is filed by the wife to withdraw H.M.O.P. No.172 of 2025 pending on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Chengalpattu and transfer the same to the file of the Family Court, Puducherry.

4. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 10.03.2025. The wife has filed H.M.O.P. No.623 of 2025 before the Family Court, Puducherry for dissolution of marriage. The husband has filed H.M.O.P. No.172 of 2025 before the Principal Sub Court, Chengalpattu seeking restitution of conjugal rights, and the same is stated to be pending.

5. In the present Transfer C.M.P.No.1271 of 2025, the husband seeks transfer of the wife’s H.M.O.P. No.623 of 2025 from the Family Court, Puducherry to the Principal Sub Court, Chengalpattu. The principal reasons stated by the husband are that the wife is stated to be working in Chennai and, according to the husband, the proceedings at Puducherry are instituted only based on the wife’s address proof, resulting in hardship to the husband and causing him to run from one Court to another. The husband further states that his aged father is a heart patient requiring constant attention and medical supervision and that the husband, being the only son, would face serious hardship if compelled to travel frequently to Puducherry.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the wife would submit that the wife was working at Chennai only up to September 2025 and thereafter she has been permitted to work from home and she is now residing at Puducherry along with her parents. It is submitted that the proceeding has been instituted at Puducherry, where the wife is permanently residing, and if the case is transferred to Chengalpattu, it would cause serious hardship to the wife, who would be compelled to travel from Puducherry to Chengalpattu for every hearing.

7. This Court has considered the rival submissions, and both parties were also present before this court and they were heard. It is seen that, as per the husband own showing, though he is stated to be residing at Thiruvallur, he filed the restitution of conjugal rights in the Principal Sub Court, Chengalpattu and seeks a transfer to Chennai court, whereas, the wife is stated to be permanently residing at Puducherry and the present proceeding is also pending before the Family Court, Puducherry, which is the place where she presently and permanently resides.

8. In transfer petitions arising out of matrimonial disputes, the consistent view is that the convenience of the wife deserves greater weight, unless strong and exceptional circumstances are made out. Therefore, on a careful balancing of convenience, this Court finds that the balance tilts in favour of the wife and the husband has not made out sufficient grounds for transfer.

9. Accordingly, Tr.C.M.P. No.1271 of 2025 filed by the husband is dismissed and Tr.C.M.P.No.1118 of 2025 filed by the wife is allowed.

H.M.O.P. No.172 of 2025 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Chengalpattu, is withdrawn and transferred to the file of the Family Court, Puducherry. The Principal Sub Court, Chengalpattu, shall transmit the entire records to the Family Court, Puducherry, within a period of three (3) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the Family Court, Puducherry, shall dispose of the matter in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, uninfluenced by any observations made in this order. If any interim order/stay has been granted by this Court, the same shall stand vacated and C.M.P. Nos.29100 & 25239 of 2025 are closed. There shall be no order as to costs.