01Facts
The respondent-wife filed HMOP No. 824 of 2025 before the Family Court, Madurai, seeking divorce.
pp. 1–2The parties have two daughters, who were residing with the husband.
pp. 1–2, 4The husband sought transfer of the divorce petition to the Family Court, Ramanathapuram, contending that he worked as a temple priest, maintained the children and the wife’s parents, and would face difficulty travelling to Madurai.
pp. 1–2, 4The wife opposed transfer, stating that she lived in a Madurai hostel, earned a monthly salary of Rs. 6,000, and would find travel to Ramanathapuram difficult; she also relied on an outstanding interim-maintenance application.
pp. 3–4The transfer petition was brought under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
p. 102Issues
i.1. Whether the husband established grounds under Section 24 CPC to transfer the wife’s divorce petition from the Family Court, Madurai, to the Family Court, Ramanathapuram.
pp. 1–2, 5–6ii.2. Whether, in deciding the transfer request, the wife’s convenience and the parties’ socio-economic circumstances warranted retaining the proceedings in Madurai.
pp. 5–603Law Applied
Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure empowers the High Court to transfer proceedings.
pp. 5–6In matrimonial transfer matters, the wife’s convenience is to be given predominant consideration, while the parties’ circumstances—including their socio-economic position—may also be taken into account.
pp. 5–6The husband relied on N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha; the wife cited Jaishree Banerjee v. Abhirup Banerjee.
pp. 2–4The Court stated that the husband’s cited decision did not apply to the facts before it.
p. 6Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 24
04Reasoning
The Court treated the reasons for the parties’ separation as matters for the matrimonial proceedings, not for determination in the transfer petition.
p. 5It noted that the wife was living in a Madurai hostel and had produced salary certificates showing monthly earnings of Rs. 6,000; it also considered the husband’s admitted performance of freelance domestic rituals and the support provided to the children by their maternal grandparents.
p. 5Given the wife’s stated convenience in remaining in Madurai and the settled preference for the wife’s convenience in matrimonial transfers, the Court found no sufficient basis to transfer the case.
pp. 5–605Holding
The Court answered the transfer question against the husband and dismissed the petition, leaving HMOP No. 824 of 2025 before the Family Court, Madurai.
p. 6No costs were awarded, and the connected civil miscellaneous petition was closed.
p. 6Original Court PDF
C.Ragu RamachandranvsR.Karthika
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
