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.

G.Devi vs S.Gopinath

G.Devi vs S.Gopinath

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Apr 16, 2026
~4 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1507257

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/97/2026

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

G.Devi

Respondent

S.Gopinath

Excerpt

.....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. harish chander heera), the hon’ble supreme court hasheld that where the petitioner's wife has pleaded lack ofmoney, 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.”page3 of 57. in consideration of the above said details, the request of the petitionerherein / wife appears to be based on justifiable cause and accordingly, this transfer civil miscellaneous petition is allowed. as a sequel to this, h.mo.p.no.520 of 2025 pending on the file of the learned judge, family court, karur, is withdrawn and transferred to the file of the learned judge, family court, erode. the family court, erode, 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. 16-04-2026 nvi index: yes/nospeaking/non-speaking orderneutral citation: yes/no to1. the judge, family court, karur2. the judge, family court, erode page4 of 5r.kalaimathi, j.nvi tr cmp no. 97 of 2026 and c.m.p.no.2261 of 2026 16-04-2026 page5 of 5

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 16-04-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE R. KALAIMATHI and C.M.P.No.2261 of 2026 G.Devi, Female,26 W/o.Gopinath, D/o.P.Baskaran, No.320, Andavar Illam, Muniyappan Kovil Street, Manickampalayam, Erode-638 004. ..Petitioner(s) Vs. S.Gopinath, Male, 38, S/o.P.Shanmuganathan, Sivaji Street, Kulithalai Taluk, Karur District-639 104. ..Respondent(s) Prayer: Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Section 24 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to withdraw the H.M.O.P.No.520 of 2025 pending before the Family Court, Karur, and transfer the same to the Family Court, Erode. For Petitioner(s): Mr.J.Ranjithkumar For Respondent(s): Mr.N.R.Sai Gautham Page1 of 5

ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner (wife) and the learned counsel for the respondent (husband) and perused the materials available on record.

2. The respondent / wife in H.M.O.P.No.520 of 2025 on the file of the

Family Court, Karur, is the petitioner herein. The said H.M.O.P. has been filed for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

3. The petitioner would aver that she has been residing at Erode along

with her 6-year-old child, and she finds it difficult to travel to Cuddalore, covering a distance of approximately 70 kilometers one way. She would further aver that such travel involves multiple changes of transport and long waiting hours.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would reiterate the grounds set out in the petition and seeks transfer of the aforesaid O.P. to the Family Court, Erode. Page2 of 5

5. The learned counsel for the respondent would strenuously contend that, if

the matter is transferred to the Family Court, Erode, it would cause hardship to the resopndent, as he would have to travel a long distance to attend the Court hearings.

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 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. 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.”

Page3 of 5

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. As a sequel to this, H.MO.P.No.520 of 2025 pending on the file of the learned Judge, Family Court, Karur, is withdrawn and transferred to the file of the learned Judge, Family Court, Erode. The Family Court, Erode, 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. 16-04-2026 nvi Index: Yes/No

Speaking/Non-speaking order

Neutral Citation: Yes/No To

1. The Judge, Family Court, Karur

2. The Judge, Family Court, Erode Page4 of 5

R.KALAIMATHI, J.

nvi TR CMP No. 97 of 2026 and C.M.P.No.2261 of 2026 16-04-2026 Page5 of 5

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial