Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Ragasudha vs Nagarajan

Ragasudha vs Nagarajan

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Apr 17, 2026
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1475274

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Chennai High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
TR CMP/669/2025

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ragasudha

Respondent

Nagarajan

Excerpt

.....aresh goel vs. aresh satya goel), when the wife pleaded that she was unable to bear the travelling expenses and even to travel alone and stay at bombay, the supreme court ordered transfer of proceedings. ii. in 2000 (10) scc 304 (geeta heera vs. harish chander heera), the hon’ble supreme court has held that where the petitioner's wife has pleaded lack of money, the same has to be considered. page2 of 4iii. in lalita a. ranga vs. ajay champalal ranja reported in (2009) 9 scc 355 , wherein the wife, who was having small child and she was finding it difficult to travel from jaipur to bombay, and the hon’ble apex court accepting her request ordered the transfer petition in favour of the wife transferring the transfer petition from family court at bandra in mumbai to the family court at jaipur.”7. in consideration of the abovesaid details, the request of thepetitioner / wife appears to be based on justifiable cause and accordingly, this transfer civil miscellaneous petition is ordered. sequel to this, h.m.o.p.no.72 of 2023 pending on the file of the sub court, thittakudi is withdrawn and transferred to the file of the principal sub court, kallakurichi. the principal sub court, kallakurichi, on receipt of the records to try and dispose of the matter in accordance with law at the earliest. no costs. consequently, connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed. index: yes/nospeaking/non-speaking orderneutral citation: yes/no kas page3 of 4r.kalaimathi, j.kas to. 1.sub court thittakudi cuddalore district2. principal sub court kallakurichi district page4 of 4

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 17-04-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE R. KALAIMATHI Ragasudha ..Petitioner(s) Vs. Nagarajan ..Respondent(s) PRAYER: Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Section 24 of C.P.C. seeking to withdraw the HMOP.No.72 of 2023 from the file of the Sub Court, Thittakudi, Cuddalore District and to transfer the same to the Principal Sub Court, Kallakurichi District. For Petitioner(s): Mr.A. Poorniputiran For Respondent(s): Mr.S.Santhanamoorthi

ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner (wife) and learned counsel for the respondent (husband). 2.The respondent (wife) in H.M.O.P.No.72 of 2023 on the file of the Sub Court, Thittakudi, is the petitioner herein. Page1 of 4 3.The petitioner (wife) would aver that she is residing with her parents and she finds it difficult to travel from Kallakurichi to Thittakudi to attend the hearings at Sub Court, Thittakudi. 4.Learned counsel for the petitioner would reiterate the grounds set out in the transfer CMP and seeks to transfer the aforestated H.M.O.P.No.72 of 2023 from Sub Court, Thittakudi to Principal Sub Court, Kallakurichi. 5.Learned counsel for the respondent (husband) would vehemently contend that if the matter is transferred to Principal Sub Court, Kallakurichi, the respondent needs to travel for a long hours to attend the Court and this would cause hardship to him.

6. The principles regarding transfer petitions, more specifically in the matters of matrimonial cases are well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the following cases:-

“i. In AIR 2000 SC 3512 (1) (Mona Aresh Goel vs. Aresh Satya Goel), when the wife pleaded that she was unable to bear the travelling expenses and even to travel alone and stay at Bombay, the Supreme Court ordered transfer of proceedings. ii. In 2000 (10) SCC 304 (Geeta Heera Vs. Harish Chander Heera), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that where the petitioner's wife has pleaded lack of money, the same has to be considered. Page2 of 4

iii. In Lalita A. Ranga Vs. Ajay Champalal Ranja reported in (2009) 9 SCC 355 , wherein the wife, who was having small child and she was finding it difficult to travel from Jaipur to Bombay, and the Hon’ble Apex Court accepting her request ordered the transfer petition in favour of the wife transferring the transfer petition from Family Court at Bandra in Mumbai to the Family Court at Jaipur.”

7. In consideration of the abovesaid details, the request of the

petitioner / wife appears to be based on justifiable cause and accordingly, this Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is ordered. Sequel to this, H.M.O.P.No.72 of 2023 pending on the file of the Sub Court, Thittakudi is withdrawn and transferred to the file of the Principal Sub Court, Kallakurichi. The Principal Sub Court, Kallakurichi, on receipt of the records to try and dispose of the matter in accordance with law at the earliest. No Costs. Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Index: Yes/No

Speaking/Non-speaking order

Neutral Citation: Yes/No kas Page3 of 4

R.KALAIMATHI, J.

kas To. 1.Sub Court Thittakudi Cuddalore District

2. Principal Sub Court Kallakurichi District Page4 of 4

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial