Wife In Theni With 9-Year-Old Son Gets Husband’s Restitution Case Moved From Madurai To Theni Sub Court

In brief

The question

1. Whether H.M.O.P. No. 1683 of 2025 should be transferred from the Family Court, Madurai, to a court in Theni on grounds of the wife’s and child’s convenience.

The court held

The transfer petition was partly allowed.

It also directed

H.M.O.P. No. 1683 of 2025 was withdrawn from the Family Court, Madurai, and transferred to the Sub Court, Theni, for disposal in accordance with law.

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

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

01Facts

The respondent-husband filed H.M.O.P. No. 1683 of 2025 for restitution of conjugal rights in the Family Court, Madurai.

p. 1

The petitioner-wife sought transfer of the proceeding to Theni, stating that she lived there with her parents and their nine-year-old son, who attended school in Theni, and that she had no independent income and faced difficulty travelling to Madurai.

pp. 1–3

The husband objected, relying on the availability of video-conference appearances and proposing transfer to Usilampatti.

pp. 3–4

The Court found that the child was residing and studying in Theni and that the husband had produced no material showing that the child was studying in Chennai.

p. 4

02Issues

i.1. Whether H.M.O.P. No. 1683 of 2025 should be transferred from the Family Court, Madurai, to a court in Theni on grounds of the wife’s and child’s convenience.

pp. 1–4, 7

ii.2. Whether the proceeding should be transferred to the Family Court, Theni, or to the Sub Court, Theni, in light of the parties’ circumstances.

pp. 4–5

03Law Applied

The petition was brought under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which empowers the High Court to withdraw and transfer proceedings.

p. 1

The Court applied the settled principle that, in transfer petitions arising from matrimonial disputes, the wife’s convenience should receive predominant consideration.

p. 5

The petitioner also relied on N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha, 2022 Live Law (SC) 627.

p. 3

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 24

04Reasoning

The Court accepted that the wife was residing in Theni with the parties’ son, whose school identity card supported his schooling there; the husband produced no contrary evidence, and the wife’s residence with her parents was not specifically denied.

pp. 4–5

Applying the principle that the wife’s convenience predominates in matrimonial transfer matters, the Court considered transfer to Theni appropriate.

p. 5

It rejected Usilampatti as a middle-place option, reasoning that it would not serve the parties’ purpose, and selected the Sub Court, Theni, rather than the Family Court, Theni, on the stated basis that personal appearance would not be insisted upon there.

p. 5