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

The wife filed HMOP No. 124 of 2025 before the Subordinate Court, Nagapattinam, seeking restitution of conjugal rights.

The husband filed HMOP No. 656 of 2025 before the Family Court, Trichirappalli, seeking divorce.

The wife sought transfer of the husband’s petition to Nagapattinam for joint disposal, stating that she lived with her parents in Vedaranyam Taluk and had no independent means.

The husband opposed transfer, alleging that she worked as a doctor in Trichy and that Nagapattinam was less convenient for her.

Whether the husband’s divorce petition should be transferred from the Family Court, Trichirappalli, to the Subordinate Court, Nagapattinam, for disposal along with the wife’s restitution petition.

The Court considered its power under Section 24 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to transfer proceedings.

It applied the settled principle, stated with reference to decisions of the Supreme Court, that in matrimonial transfer petitions the wife’s convenience should be given predominant consideration.

The Court noted that the wife’s restitution petition was already pending in Nagapattinam and that the husband had not produced material to substantiate his claim that she resided and worked in Trichy.

The wife’s assertion that she lived with her parents in Vedaranyam was not specifically denied.

Giving predominant weight to the wife’s convenience, and taking account of the existing proceeding in Nagapattinam, the Court found transfer appropriate.

It also observed that the husband would not need to attend every hearing in the Subordinate Court.

The Family Court was directed to transmit the records within two weeks of receiving the order.

No costs were awarded, and the connected civil miscellaneous petition was closed.