Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 01-06-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE R. KALAIMATHI and CMP No.21122 of 2025 O.Janani, W/o. Om Prakash, D/o.M.Bhaskaran, No.110/50, Eden Garden Street, Jamalia, Perambalur, Chennai -600 012. ..Petitioner(s) Vs. S.Omprakash, S/o.Sivanatham, No.3/333, Jeevanantham Street, Santhoshapuram, Vengaivasal, Selaiyur, Kancheepuram - 600 073. ..Respondent(s) Prayer: Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Section 24 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, to withdraw H.M.O.P.No.209 of 2025 which is pending before the Sub Court, Tambaram, and to transfer the same to the file of Family Court, Chennai for disposal in accordance with law. For Petitioner(s) : Mr.M.Kalaiyarasan For Respondent(s): Mr.N.Ganeshmurthy
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner (wife) and the learned counsel for the respondent (husband). Page1 of 5
2. The petitioner (wife) would aver that she has been residing at
Perambur, Chennai, along with her parents and she finds it difficult to travel to Sub Court, Tambaram in order to attend in the Court proceedings. She would further aver that there is no one to accompany her from Perambur to Tambaram, which is more than 50 kms up and down.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would reiterate the grounds set out in the petition and seeks to transfer the aforesaid HMOP from the file of the Sub Court, Tambaram to the Family Court, Chennai.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent per contra would strenuously contend that if the OP instituted by the husband is transferred to the Family Court at Chennai, the respondent would be put into inconvenience and hardship.
5. 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 traveling 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. Page2 of 5 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.
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.”
6. The petitioner (wife) is a resident of Perambur, Chennai. The
respondent is a resident of Selaiyur, Kancheepuram. It is stated that she is working at Siruseri. Though her workplace is Siruseri, if the OP is transferred to Chennai, it will be convenient for her to attend the Court proceedings as she is a resident of Perambur.
7. In consideration of the above said details, the request of the petitioner
herein / wife appears to be based on justifiable cause and accordingly, this Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. Sequel to this, H.MO.P.No.209 of 2025 pending on the file of the Sub Court, Tambaram, is withdrawn and transferred to the file of the Family Court, Chennai. The learned Judge of the Sub Court, Tambaram, shall send the case records to the Family Court, Chennai, forthwith. The learned Judge, the Family Court, Page3 of 5 Chennai, on receipt of the records, shall take all effective steps to try and dispose of the matter in accordance with law at the earliest. No Costs. Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 01-06-2026 Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No MAC To
1. The Sub Court, Tambaram
2. The Family Court, Chennai Page4 of 5
R.KALAIMATHI, J.
MAC and CMP No.21122 of 2025 01-06-2026 Page5 of 5