BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 16.12.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ

1.Velmurugan 2.Murugaesan 3.Sivasangari

4.Keerthivasan ... Petitioners Vs.

Priyadharsini ... Respondent Prayer : Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 24 of Civil Procedure Code to withdraw D.V.P.No.6 of 2024 on the file of the Hon'ble District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Aravakurichi, Karur and transfer the same to the Combined Courts, Tiruppur.

For Petitioners : M/s.A.Banumathy For Respondent : Mr.S.Gokulraj

ORDER

This transfer petition is at the instance of the husband and his family members. They seek withdrawal of D.V.P.No.6 of 2024 from the file of District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Aravakurichi, Karur and transfer the same to Combined Courts, Tiruppur.

2. Heard M/s.A.Banumathy, learned counsel for petitioners and Mr.S.Gokulraj, learned counsel for respondent.

3. Marriage between first petitioner and respondent was solemnized on

26.01.2022 as per Hindu rites and customs. Due to differences, parties have separated. Domestic Violence Case was filed by respondent/wife in D.V.P.No.6 of 2024 before the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Aravakurichi, Karur sometime in March 2024. Thereafter, first petitioner filed a petition of dissolution of marriage in H.M.O.P.No.64 of 2024 before the Family Court, Tiruppur while respondent filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights in H.M.O.P.No.116 of 2024 before the same court. Pleading that petitioners are residing in Tiruppur and unable to travel from Tiruppur to Karur, they have moved this transfer petition.

4. Petitioners have filed the present transfer petition invoking Section 24 of Civil Procedure Code on the premise that first petitioner has to travel more than two hours with his aged parents/petitioners 2 and 3, who are under medical treatment, to attend each hearing at District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Aravakurichi, Karur.

5. To the contrary, learned counsel for respondent would submit that respondent/wife is residing in Aravkurichi, Karur; that petitioners are intentionally protracting the proceedings in D.V.P.No.6 of 2024 and that trial has also commenced in the said case.

6. It is relevant to note that Parliament, while amending the Hindu Marriage Act, has incorporated Section 19(iii), permitting a wife to initiate a proceeding in a place where she is residing. This is an indication that convenience of the wife has to be given precedence by the Court. In line with this Parliamentary amendment, this Court and the Supreme Court have consistently held in matters of transfer, convenience of wife should be given a superior consideration than that of husband.

7. The present transfer petition praying for transfer of D.V.O.P.No.6 of

2024 to Combined Courts, Tiruppur may not be justified inasmuch as the Domestic Violence Act does not contain any provisions clothing jurisdiction on the Family Court to entertain an application under Section 12 of the Act. In this regard, it may be relevant to refer to the decision of this Court in the case of Capt. C.V.S. Ravi v. Ratna Sailaja, 2008 SCC OnLine Mad 660, wherein, after referring to the judgment of the Division Bench in Munna Lal Vs. State of U.P., 1991 Crl.L.J. 1838 (DB), it was held as under:

''13. In the decision reported in 1991 Crl.L.J. 1838 (DB)

(referred to supra) and relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner the question that came up for consideration before the Division Bench was as to whether the High Court has jurisdiction to transfer the case from one Family Court to another Court in exercise of powers of transfer under C.P.C. and Cr.P.C. While considering that issue the Division Bench in paragraphs 14 and 15 of the said decision has held as under:

“14. Family Court is a Court, which decides the disputes in exercise of the State's judicial power conferred on it by a statute in a judicial manner and declare the rights of the parties. Parties before the Family Cour