Madras High Court
Civil Procedure and EvidenceFamily Law

In matrimonial transfer petitions, the wife’s convenience must receive predominant consideration.

Varshini vs Sasidharan

Madras High CourtJUDGMENT: October 06, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
In matrimonial transfer petitions, the wife’s convenience must receive predominant consideration.. Varshini vs Sasidharan. Madras High Court. LawLens
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

The petitioner-wife sought transfer of the respondent-husband’s petition for restitution of conjugal rights, H.M.O.P. No. 127 of 2026, and guardianship and custody petition, G.W.O.P. No. 168 of 2026, from courts in Coimbatore to the Family Court, Srivilliputhur.

Source reference: p. 2–5, 7

She lived in Srivilliputhur with her parents and their three-and-a-half-year-old son, and submitted that travelling approximately 258 km to Coimbatore with the child was difficult.

Source reference: p. 2–5, 7

The respondent proposed transfer to Dindigul, citing a fracture, but produced no supporting material. The parties’ allegations concerning harassment and the petitioner’s mental health were disputed. The High Court had stayed the underlying proceedings; the respondent’s challenge to that stay before the Supreme Court was dismissed.

Source reference: p. 2–5, 7
02

Issues

1. Whether H.M.O.P. No. 127 of 2026 should be transferred from the II Additional Subordinate Court, Coimbatore, to the Family Court, Srivilliputhur under Section 24 CPC.

Source reference: p. 1, 7–8

2. Whether G.W.O.P. No. 168 of 2026 should likewise be transferred from the Principal District Court, Coimbatore, to the Family Court, Srivilliputhur.

Source reference: p. 1, 7–8
03

Law Applied

Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure empowers the High Court to withdraw and transfer proceedings.

Source reference: p. 5

The Court applied the settled principle, attributed to a “catena” of Supreme Court decisions, that in transfer petitions involving matrimonial disputes, the wife’s convenience should receive predominant consideration. No individual precedent was identified by name in the order.

Source reference: p. 5
04

Reasoning

The wife’s residence with the minor child in Srivilliputhur was not specifically disputed, and requiring her to travel with the child to Coimbatore would cause difficulty. The respondent’s claimed fracture was unsupported by evidence, while transfer to Dindigul would require both parties to travel and would not serve a practical purpose.

Source reference: p. 4–5

The Court treated the competing allegations about harassment and the wife’s mental health as matters not determinative of the transfer applications. Giving predominant weight to the wife’s convenience, it found transfer to Srivilliputhur appropriate.

Source reference: p. 4–5
05

Holding

The Court allowed both transfer petitions under Section 24 CPC and transferred H.M.O.P. No. 127 of 2026 and G.W.O.P. No. 168 of 2026 to the Family Court, Srivilliputhur, for disposal in accordance with law.

The respective Coimbatore courts were directed to transmit the records within two weeks of receiving the order. No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

Source reference: p. 6–7
06

Acts & Sections Cited

2 provisions across 2 statutes referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.

Code of Civil Procedure, 19081

Hindu Marriage Act, 19551

Madras High Court

Original Court PDF

VarshinivsSasidharan

Madras High Court · October 06, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment