Madras High CourtFamily LawCivil Procedure and Evidence

Wife’s Move To Madurai With Elderly, Unwell Father Leads Madras HC To Transfer Couple’s Two Divorce Cases From Coimbatore To Madurai

V.Deekshitha,v.R.Aravinth,

Wife’s Move To Madurai With Elderly, Unwell Father Leads Madras HC To Transfer Couple’s Two Divorce Cases From Coimbatore To Madurai. V.Deekshitha, vs R.Aravinth,. Madras High Court. LawLens
The LawLens card for this judgmentXLinkedInWhatsApp

In brief

The question

1. Whether the wife’s changed residence and the stated difficulty of travelling justified transferring the two matrimonial proceedings from Coimbatore to Madurai.

The court held

The Court allowed both transfer petitions and withdrew HMOP Nos. 1352 of 2024 and 330 of 2025 from the Family Court, Coimbatore, transferring them to the Family Court, Madurai for disposal in accordance with law.

It also directed

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

01Facts

The wife filed HMOP No. 1352 of 2024 for divorce before the Family Court, Coimbatore; the husband’s divorce petition, HMOP No. 484 of 2024, was earlier transferred from Salem to Coimbatore on her application and renumbered HMOP No. 330 of 2025.

pp. 3–6

After her family moved to Madurai, she sought to transfer both pending petitions to the Family Court, Madurai, stating that her aged father was unwell and that travelling to Coimbatore was difficult. The husband opposed the applications, arguing that the earlier transfer to Coimbatore had already accommodated her and that the cases should instead be heard at a location between the parties.

pp. 3–6

02Issues

i.1. Whether the wife’s changed residence and the stated difficulty of travelling justified transferring the two matrimonial proceedings from Coimbatore to Madurai.

pp. 6–8

ii.2. Whether the earlier transfer of the husband’s petition from Salem to Coimbatore precluded a further transfer application.

pp. 6–7

03Law Applied

The petitions were 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 principle that, in matrimonial transfer applications, the wife’s convenience should receive predominant consideration.

pp. 5, 7–8

The Court referred to N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha (2022 SCC OnLine SC 1199) and decisions of the Madras High Court concerning matrimonial transfers.

pp. 5, 7–8

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

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 24

04Reasoning

The Court accepted that the wife had moved from Coimbatore to Madurai with her family and was then residing in Madurai; the husband did not dispute her present residence. It considered her stated difficulty in travelling with her elderly, unwell father and applied the principle favouring the wife’s convenience in matrimonial proceedings.

pp. 6–8

The earlier transfer had been made when she resided in Coimbatore, and the Court found no bar to a further application following the change in circumstances. It rejected the proposal to transfer the cases to a middle location, finding that this would cause hardship to both parties.

pp. 6–8

05Holding

The Court allowed both transfer petitions and withdrew HMOP Nos. 1352 of 2024 and 330 of 2025 from the Family Court, Coimbatore, transferring them to the Family Court, Madurai for disposal in accordance with law.

p. 8

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

p. 8
Madras High Court

Original Court PDF

V.Deekshitha,vsR.Aravinth,

Madras High Court · November 12, 2026

Click to open original judgment

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

Click to open original judgment