C.Ragu Ramachandran vs R.Karthika
- Court
- Madras High Court
Tr.C.M.P(MD)No.602 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 23.09.2026
Pronounced on : 10.11.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VADAMALAI
TR CMP(MD) NO. 602 of 2025
{CNR: HCMD011457212025}
Case QR
and
C.M.P(MD)No.17085 of 2025
C.Ragu Ramachandran ... Petitioner/Respondent
Vs.
R.Karthika ... Respondent/Petitioner
PRAYER: This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Section
24 of the Civil Procedure Code, to withdraw the original petition filed in
HMOP.No.824 of 2025 on the file of the Family Court, Madurai and transfer
the same to the Family Court, Ramanathapuram.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ramesh
For Respondent : Mr.M.Divakaran
ORDER
This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed seeking for an order
to withdraw the HMOP No.824 of 2025 on the file of the Family Court,
Madurai and to transfer the same to the file of the Family Court,
Ramanathapuram.
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 06:20:32 pm )
Tr.C.M.P(MD)No.602 of 2025
2. The petitioner is the husband of the respondent. Their marriage was
solemnized on 12.09.2010 in Madurai as per Hindu rites and customs.
Out of wedlock, they were blessed with two daughters. During their marital
life, misunderstandings arose between them and they have been residing
separately. The respondent filed HMOP.No.824 of 2025 before the Family
Court, Madurai, seeking for divorce. Now, the petitioner has filed the present
petition to transfer the divorce petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
marriage between the petitioner and the respondent took place on 12.09.2010.
They were blessed with two girl children born in the years 2012 and 2016.
The respondent left the matrimonial home without any proper reason and
filed the main OP against the petitioner for divorce. The
petitioner is working as a Gurukkal in Ramanathaswamy Shivan Temple in
Kilakari, and he is the sole Gurukkal to perform day-to-day poojas.
The children and the parents of the respondent are residing with the petitioner
and this fact is admitted by the respondent. The respondent is working in a
private company and earning sufficient income. She is not taking care of her
own parents and children. The petitioner finds it difficult to travel to Madurai
2/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 06:20:32 pm )
Tr.C.M.P(MD)No.602 of 2025
as he is maintaining the entire family, including the parents of the respondent
and also performing all the day-to-day poojas of the temple. In such
circumstances, the convenience of the respondent is not to be considered.
Therefore, the petition may be allowed. In support of his contention, the
learned counsel has relied on the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
delivered in Civil Appeal No.4894 of 2022 dated 18.07.2022 in the case of
N.C.V.Aishwarya /v/ A.S.Saravana Karthik Sha .
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent filed a counter and
objected to the petition. The petitioner is not a Gurukkal. His father alone is a
Gurukkal at a temple, which is a street temple and is not under the control of
HR & CE. The petitioner was always suspecting the character of the
respondent, forcing her to leave the matrimonial home, later, she filed the
divorce petition. The parents of the respondent are residing in the petitioner's
village and they are taking care of her children. The marriage was solemnized
in Madurai and previously the respondent was also residing in Madurai. Now,
she is working in a private concern as an Office Assistant with a salary of
Rs.6,000/- and staying in a PG Hostel by paying Rs.3,000/-. Moreover, the
respondent has filed a I.A. in HMOP.No.824 of 2025 for interim maintenance
3/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 06:20:32 pm )
Tr.C.M.P(MD)No.602 of 2025
and the petitioner has not paid a single pie so far. The petitioner is
earning more income, and he has admitted in his counter filed in
HMOP.No.824 of 2025 that he is performing freelance domestic rituals at
private residences during festival periods. In case of transfer of matrimonial
cases, the convenience of the wife has to be given much importance. In the
ruling relied on by the petitioner, the Hon’ble Supreme Court also reaffirmed
the same and also took into consideration of socio-economic status of both
parties. In this case, the petitioner is earning more than the respondent. If this
petition is allowed, the respondent will find it very difficult in travelling to
Ramanathapuram from Madurai. To evade the case proceedings before the
Family Court, Madurai, the petitioner has filed this petition without any valid
reason. Therefore, the petition may be dismissed. In support of her argument,
the learned counsel for the respondent has relied on the ruling reported in
1997 Supreme (SC) 5 in the case of Jaishree Banerjee /v/ Abhirup
Banerjee.
5. The submissions of both side and citations were considered.
The petitioner and the respondent are husband and wife. Out of wedlock, they
have two female children, who are residing along with the petitioner.
4/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 06:20:32 pm )
Tr.C.M.P(MD)No.602 of 2025
It is alleged by the petitioner that the respondent left the matrimonial home
without any reason, whereas the respondent alleges that the petitioner was
always suspecting her character, so she was forced to leave the matrimonial
home. However, these issues cannot be decided in this petition, which is filed
for transfer of the main original petition.
6. It is admitted by the petitioner that the respondent is now residing in
a PG hostel at Madurai by working in a private firm. The marriage admittedly
took place in Madurai. The petitioner states that the respondent is earning
more than the petitioner, so she wants to consider the socio-
economic condition. The respondent has stated that she is receiving only
Rs.6,000/- as monthly salary from January 2026 and filed a copy of salary
certificates in the typed set of papers. The petitioner has been performing
freelance domestic rituals at private residences during festival time, as
contended in his counter filed in HMOP.No.824 of 2025. Moreover, the
children are getting support of their maternal grandparents.
7. It is a well settled proposition of law that, whenever a transfer
5/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 06:20:32 pm )
Tr.C.M.P(MD)No.602 of 2025
petition is filed in matrimonial disputes, the convenience of the wife should
be predominantly looked into, and the wife’s convenience shall be given
preference. In this case, though the respondent is residing in a PG Hostel in
Madurai, she expressed her convenience in staying at Madurai.
The citation relied on by the petitioner does not apply to the facts of this case.
Therefore, taking note of the settled position of the convenience of the wife in
matrimonial cases, I am of the view that the present petition filed by the
petitioner/husband is liable to be dismissed.
8. In the result, this Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed.
No costs. Consequently, the connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
10.11.2026
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
VSD
To
1.The Family Court,
Madurai.
6/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 06:20:32 pm )
Tr.C.M.P(MD)No.602 of 2025
2.The Section Officer,
Vernacular Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
P.VADAMALAI, J.
VSD
Pre - Delivery Order made in
Tr.CMP(MD)No.602 of 2025
10.11.2026
7/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 06:20:32 pm )