SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 35867

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K.MURALI SHANKAR, J
R.Dharani – Appellant
Versus
K.Manikandan – Respondent
Tr.C.M.P (MD).No.8 of 2026 | C.M.P(MD)No.208 of 2026 | H.M.O.P.No.188 of 2025



Advocates:
For the Petitioner: Mr.S.Jai Surya Prakash
For the Respondent: No Appearance

Wife's convenience prioritized in matrimonial transfer petitions under Section 24 CPC.

Headnote:Under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, transfer petitions in matrimonial matters prioritize the wife's convenience, considering economic and social factors. The petitioner sought transfer of a divorce petition from Sub Court, Pattukkottai to Family Court, Karur, citing residence with female child and travel difficulties. The court found respondent absent despite notices and allowed transfer for justice. Issue framed as convenience for hearings given petitioner's location. Ratio: Supreme Court in analogous case held wife's convenience paramount in transfers, quoting need to weigh socioeconomic circumstances and sustenance. Court applied this to allow transfer. Petition allowed; records to be transmitted within 10 days; connected petition closed.

Table of Content
1. petition seeks transfer of divorce case citing wife's travel hardship. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 5)
2. respondent absent despite notices. (Para 4 , 7)
3. supreme court precedent prioritizes wife's convenience in transfers. (Para 6)
4. transfer allowed to family court, karur. (Para 8 , 9)

O R D E R

The Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed seeking orders to withdraw the petition in H.M.O.P.No.188 of 2025 pending on the file of the Sub Court, Pattukkottai, Thanjavur District and transfer the same to the Family Court, Karur District.

2. It is evident from the records that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 01.06.2020 as per Hindu Rites and customs and due to their wedlock, they were blessed with a female child and that subsequently, there arose some misunderstanding between them and they are are living separately.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the respondent has filed a divorce petition in H.M.O.P.No.188 of 2025, before the Sub Court, Pattukkottai, Thanajvur District.

4. When the matter was taken up on 27.03.2026, despite receipt of Court notice as well private notice, the respondent has not turned up. Even today, there is no representation for the respondent.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is residing at Puliyur, Karur along with her female child and finds it very difficult to travel to Thanjavur to attend all the hearings.

6. In the case of N.C.V.Aishwarya Vs. A.S.Saravana Karthik Sha reported in 2022 Live Law (SC) 627, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated the position with generally, it is the wife's convenience, which must be looked at while considering the transfer petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the relevant passage is extracted hereunder :

“The cardinal principle for exercise of power under Section

24 of the Code of Civil Procedure is that the ends of justice should demand the transfer of the suit, appeal or other proceeding. In matrimonial matters, wherever Courts are called upon to consider the plea of transfer, the Courts have to take into consideration the economic soundness of both the parties, the social strata of the spouses and their behavioural pattern, their standard of life prior to the marriage and subsequent thereto and the circumstances of both the parties in eking out their livelihood and under whose protective umbrella they are seeking their sustenance to life. Given the prevailing socioeconomic paradigm in the Indian society, generally, it is the wife's convenience which must be looked at while considering transfer.", the bench observed.”

7. As already pointed out, despite receipt of Court notice, the respondent has not turned up.

8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and taking note of the fact that the petitioner is residing at Karur District along with her female child, this Court is inclined to allow this petition. Accordingly, the petition in H.M.O.P.No.188 of 2025, is ordered to be withdrawn from the file of the Sub Court, Pattukkottai, Thanjavur and transfer the same to the file of the Family Court, Karur. The learned Sub Judge, Pattukkottai, Thanajvur, is hereby directed to transmit the entire records in H.M.O.P.No.188 of 2025 to the file of the Family Court, Karur, within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order and on receiving the case bundle, the learned Judge, Family Court, Karur, is directed to take up the petition on file and proceed in accordance with law.

9. With the above direction, the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition stands allowed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top