In matrimonial transfer petitions under Section 24 CPC, wife's convenience generally prevails considering socioeconomic factors.

O R D E R

The Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed seeking orders to withdraw the case in H.M.O.P. No.99 of 2025 from the file of the Principal Sub Court, Kancheepuram and transfer the same to the Family Court, Karur.

2. It is not in dispute that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 07.09.2022 as per Hindu Rites and customs and due to their wed-lock they were blessed with a male child, now aged 2 ½ years and subsequently, there arose some misunderstanding between them and they are living separately.

3. It is not in dispute that the respondent has filed a petition in H.M.O.P.No.99 of 2025, seeking divorce and the same is pending on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Kancheepuram and that the petitioner has filed a petition in H.M.O.P.No.165 of 2025, seeking restitution of conjugal rights and the same is pending on the file of the Family Court, Karur. It is also not in dispute the petitioner has initiated the proceeding under Domestic Violence Act and the same is pending in D.V.C.No.27 of 2025 on the file of the Additional Mahila Court, Karur. Moreover, FIR came to be registered for the offence under POCSO Act against the respondent as well as his parents and the same is pending in Spl.S.C.No.71 of 2025 on the file of the Mahila Court, Karur.

4. When the matter was taken up earlier, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the petitioner has filed similar transfer petition and the same is pending before the Principal Seat at Madras, in Tr.C.M.P No.36 of 2026.

5.When the matter is taken up for hearing today, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the above transfer petition came to be filed without the knowledge of the petitioner and the same was withdrawn and the Court has already dismissed the case as withdrawn on

01.04.2026.

6.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is residing at Athur, Karur District along with 2 ½ years male child and finds it very difficult to travel to Kancheepuram to attend all the hearings.

7. The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the respondent is facing threats from the petitioner’s family when appearing for cases at the Karur Courts.

8. But according to him, he contacted the police through 100, but did not prefer any complaint. Moreover, the fact remains that the respondent has been attending the hearings in the petition for restitution of conjugal rights, the Domestic Violence case, and the complaint under the POCSO Act before the Courts at Karur.

9. 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 prevail