V.Sharon Chandralega v. P.Nishanth
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
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
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. 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…
- Para 66. 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, I.D.O.P.No.373 of 2025 pending on the file of the Family…
Judgment
Tr.C.M.P.No.94 of 2026IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 13.03.2026CORAMTHE HON'BLE Mrs.JUSTICE R.KALAIMATHITr.C.M.P.No.94 of 2026V.Sharon Chandralega ... Petitioner VsP.Nishanth ... RespondentPRAYER: Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Section 24 of Civil Procedure Code, to withdraw and transfer the matrimonial case in I.D.O.P.No.373 of 2025 pending on the file of the Family Court Dindigul to the file of Family Court, Chennai. For Petitioner : Mr.L.Rajasekar For Respondent: No AppearanceORDERHeard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
When the matter was posted on 11.03.2026, there is no representation for the respondent. Hence, for want of counsel for the respondent, this matter is posted today.1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Tr.C.M.P.No.94 of 20263. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that since the petitioner/wife is resident of Chennai, she finds it difficult to travel to Dindigul to attend Court proceedings in I.D.O.P.No.373 of 2025.
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 2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Tr.C.M.P.No.94 of 2026 Court at Bandra in Mumbai to the Family Court at Jaipur.
On perusal of case records, it appears that the husband who is the resident of Dindigul has taken out petition for divorce and it is pending before the Family Court, Dindigul in I.D.O.P.No.373 of 2025.
Operative part
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, I.D.O.P.No.373 of 2025 pending on the file of the Family Court, Dindigul is directed to be transferred to the file of the I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai. The Family Court, Chennai 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.13.03.2026ssn3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Tr.C.M.P.No.94 of 2026R.KALAIMATHI, J., ssnTo1. The Family Court, Dindigul.2. The I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai.3. The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras. Tr.C.M.P.No.94 of 202613.03.20264/4
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.