A.S.Nisha v. S.Ajayan

ORDER This petition has been filed seeking to withdraw the case in F.C.O.P.No. 540 of 2025 pending on the file of the Family Court, Erode, and the same may be transferred to the Family Court, Dharmapuri.

¶2There is no representation for the respondent.

3.Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record.

¶4The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/wife would submit that the petitioner/wife got married to the respondent/husband on 23.06.2019 at Sacred Heart Auditorium as per Hindu Religious, Rites and Customs. Out of their wedlock, she gave birth a girl child, namely, Rudra. Thereafter, there was some misunderstanding between them. While that being the case, the respondent/husband filed FCOP.No. 540 of 2025 on the file of Family Court, Erode, for declaring that the marriage of husband solemnized with the wife on

23.06.2019 as null and void. The petitioner/wife filed an M.C.No.125 of 2025 which is pending before the Family Court at Padmanabhapuram, Kanyakumari District and subsequently, the petitioner/wife also filed a divorce petition in HMOP.No. 174 of 2025 which is likewise pending before the Family Court, Page3 of 6 Padmanabhapuram, Kanyakumari District. The petitioner/wife herein is residing in Kanyakumari District along with her child and aged parents without any sources of income. Therefore, the petitioner/wife herein would not be able to travel to Family Court, Erode, for attending each and every hearing of the case, since the petitioner/wife needs to travel 444 kms. Therefore, the case in FCOP.No. 540 of 2025 may be withdrawn from the file of the Family Court, Erode, and transferred to the file of Family Court, Kanyakumari District.

¶5I have gone through the affidavit filed in support this petition and I find merit in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶6At this juncture, it may be apposite to cite the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in N.C.V.Aishwarya vs. A.S.Saravana Karthik (MANU/SC/1211/2022 : 2022 Live Law (SC) 627) held at paras 9 and 10, which reads as under:- "9. The cardinal principle for exercise of power under section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure is that the ends of justice should demand the transfer of the suit, appeal or other proceeding. In matrimonial matters, wherever Courts are called upon to consider the plea of transfer, the Courts have to take into consideration the economic soundness of both the parties, the social strata of the spouses and their behavioural pattern, their standard of life prior to the marriage and subsequent thereto and the circumstances of both the parties in eking out their livelihood and under whose protective umbrella they are seeking their sustenance to life. Given the prevailing socio-economic paradigm in the Indian society, generally, it is the wife's convenience which must be looked at while considering transfer. (emphasis supplied) Page4 of 6

10.Further, when two or more proceedings are pending in different Courts between the same parties which raise common question of fact and law, and when the decisions in the cases are interdependent, it is desirable that they should be tried together by the same Judge so as to avoid multiplicity in trial of the same issues and conflict of decisions".

¶7It is also relevant to refer the decision made by the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in TR.CMP(MD)No.108 of 2010 dated 03.03.2011, wherein, it has observed as below:- ''18.It is true that section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act, has been amended by insertion of proviso of (iii)(a) to section 19. Of Course, this amended section 19(iii)(a) gives special preference to the wife to file a petition or defending the case of the husband before the Court within whose jurisdiction she resides. The intention of the legislator is to safe-guard the interest and rights of the women, who are being subjected to harassment and cruelty. But this special preference conferred under section 19 (iii)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act shall not be used to wreck vengeance on the husband. There must be a justifiable cause to select the jurisdiction of the Court where she resides.''

¶8In the light of the proposition laid down in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in N.C.V.Aishwarya case cited supra and also in the light of the observation made by this Court, wherein, it has been held that convenience of the wife has to be considered, while transferring the case from one Court to another, there can be no impediment for allowing this petition as prayed for. Page5 of 6

¶9Accordingly, this Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. The case in FCOP.No. 540 of 2025 is hereby withdrawn from the file of the Family Court, Erode, and transferred to the file of the Family Court, Kanyakumari District. The respondent/husband shall appear before the Court below for trial and also through Video Conferencing Mode as and when required. No costs. Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

23.06.2026 MSM Index : Yes/No Speaking order : Yes/No Neutral Case Citation : Yes/No To

¶1The Family Court, Erode.

¶2The Family Court, Kanyakumari District. TRoCMPoNo.o323oofo2026 T.V.THAMILSELVI,oJ. MSM TRoCMPoNo.o323oofo2026 And CMP.No.o9161oofo2026 23-06-2026 Page6oofo6

Page1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 23-06-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI And CMP.No. 9161 of 2026 A.S.Nisha D/o. Anikumar, No.5/150A, Nattalam Village, Pallichalvilai, Villavancode Taluk, Kaniyakumari District. ..Petitioner(s) Vs S.Ajayan S/o. Sasidharan, No.31, Sumati Nivas, Sakthi Nagar, 3rd Cross, Ellapalayam-638 004. ..Respondent(s) Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 praying to withdraw the F.C.O.P.No.540 of 2025 pending on the file of the Hon'ble Family Court,Erode and transfer the same to the Family Court,Padmanabhapuram at Kanyakumari District and pass such further or other order as this Hon'ble Court. Page2 of 6 For Petitioner(s): MR.D.Padmanabhan For Respondent(s): NO APPEARANCE