TR CMP(MD)/602/2025 of C.Ragu Ramachandran Vs R.Karthika on 10 November 2026

ORDER

This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed seeking for an order to withdraw the HMOP No.824 of 2025 on the file of the Family Court, Madurai and to transfer the same to the file of the Family Court, Ramanathapuram.

2. The petitioner is the husband of the respondent. Their marriage was solemnized on 12.09.2010 in Madurai as per Hindu rites and customs. Out of wedlock, they were blessed with two daughters. During their marital life, misunderstandings arose between them and they have been residing separately. The respondent filed HMOP.No.824 of 2025 before the Family Court, Madurai, seeking for divorce. Now, the petitioner has filed the present petition to transfer the divorce petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent took place on 12.09.2010. They were blessed with two girl children born in the years 2012 and 2016. The respondent left the matrimonial home without any proper reason and filed the main OP against the petitioner for divorce. The petitioner is working as a Gurukkal in Ramanathaswamy Shivan Temple in Kilakari, and he is the sole Gurukkal to perform day-to-day poojas. The children and the parents of the respondent are residing with the petitioner and this fact is admitted by the respondent. The respondent is working in a private company and earning sufficient income. She is not taking care of her own parents and children. The petitioner finds it difficult to travel to Madurai as he is maintaining the entire family, including the parents of the respondent and also performing all the day-to-day poojas of the temple. In such circumstances, the convenience of the respondent is not to be considered. Therefore, the petition may be allowed. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has relied on the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court delivered in Civil Appeal No.4894 of 2022 dated 18.07.2022 in the case of N.C.V.Aishwarya /v/ A.S.Saravana Karthik Sha.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent filed a counter and objected to the petition. The petitioner is not a Gurukkal. His father alone is a Gurukkal at a temple, which is a street temple and is not under the control of HR & CE. The petitioner was always suspecting the character of the respondent, forcing her to leave the matrimonial home, later, she filed the divorce petition. The parents of the respondent are residing in the petitioner's village and they are taking care of her children. The marriage was solemnized in Madurai and previously the respondent was also residing in Madurai. Now, she is working in a private concern as an Office Assistant with a salary of Rs.6,000/- and staying in a PG Hostel by paying Rs.3,000/-. Moreover, the respondent has filed a I.A. in HMOP.No.824 of 2025 for interim maintenance and the petitioner has not paid a single pie so far. The petitioner is earning more income, and he has admitted in his counter filed in HMOP.No.824 of 2025 that he is performing freelance domestic rituals at private residences during festival periods. In case of transfer of matrimonial cases, the convenience of the wife has to be given much importance. In the ruling relied on by the petitioner, the Hon’ble Supreme Court also reaffirmed the same and also took into consideration of socio-economic status of both parties. In this case, the petitioner is earning more than the respondent. If this petition is allowed, the respondent will find it very difficult in travelling to Ramanathapuram from Madurai. To evade the case proceedings before the Family Court, Madurai, the petitioner has filed this petition without any valid reason. Therefore, the petition may be dismissed. In support of her argument, the learned counsel for the respondent has relied on the ruling reported in 1997 Supreme (SC) 5 in the case of Jaishree Banerjee /v/ Abhirup Banerjee.

5. The submissions of both side and citations were considered. The petitioner and the respondent are husband and wife. Out of wedlock, they have two female children, who are residing along with the petitioner.

It is alleged by the petitioner that the respondent left the matrimonial home without any reason, whereas the respondent alleges that the petitioner was always suspecting her character, so she was forced to leave the matrimonial home. However, these issues cannot be decided in this petition, which is filed for transfer of the main original petition.

6. It is admitted by the petitioner that the respondent is now residing in a PG hostel at Madurai by working in a private firm. The marriage admittedly took place in Madurai. The petitioner states that the respondent is earning more than the petitioner, so she wants to consider the socio- economic condition. The respondent has stated that she is receiving only Rs.6,000/- as monthly salary from January 2026 and filed a copy of salary certificates in the typed set of papers. The petitioner has been performing freelance domestic rituals at private residences during festival time, as contended in his counter filed in HMOP.No.824 of 2025. Moreover, the children are getting support of their maternal grandparents.

7. It is a well settled proposition of law that, whenever a transfer petition is filed in matrimonial disputes, the convenience of the wife should be predominantly looked into, and the wife’s convenience shall be given preference. In this case, though the respondent is residing in a PG Hostel in Madurai, she expressed her convenience in staying at Madurai. The citation relied on by the petitioner does not apply to the facts of this case. Therefore, taking note of the settled position of the convenience of the wife in matrimonial cases, I am of the view that the present petition filed by the petitioner/husband is liable to be dismissed.

8. In the result, this Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 10.11.2026 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No

Internet : Yes / No VSD To

1. The Family Court, Madurai.

2. The Section Officer, Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. P.VADAMALAI, J. VSD Pre - Delivery Order made in Tr.CMP(MD)No.602 of 2025 10.11.2026