The Madras High Court has transferred a divorce proceeding from Tiruchirappalli district to Tambaram, holding that a wife’s convenience must take priority over that of her husband when determining the jurisdiction for matrimonial disputes.
Ruling on a transfer petition, Justice N Mala directed that the divorce petition initiated by the husband, Vigneshwaran, be withdrawn from the Sub Court at Thuraiyur and transferred to the Sub Court at Tambaram. The court determined that the balance of convenience favoured the petitioner, who cited significant logistical difficulties in travelling nearly 300 kilometres alongside her three-year-old daughter to contest the case. The ruling was delivered on October 5.
Hardships Of Travel And Employment
The woman approached the High Court seeking the transfer after her husband initiated divorce proceedings before the Thuraiyur court in 2025. In her petition, she stated that she resides with her child at her parental residence in Ramapuram, Chennai, having previously stayed in Kanchipuram, and works full-time at a private real estate firm in the city.
She submitted that managing the long-distance journey between Chennai and Thuraiyur while acting as the primary caregiver to her young child created severe practical difficulties. Additionally, she alleged that her husband was employed at Siruseri within the Chennai region and had chosen to institute the divorce case in Thuraiyur solely to make it harder for her to mount a legal defence.
Failure To File Counter Affidavit
The High Court took note of procedural delays on the husband’s part during the transfer proceedings. Records showed that he had been served notice on February 5, 2026, but had failed to submit a counter affidavit to refute his wife’s claims, including the statement concerning his employment in Siruseri.
Addressing this omission, Justice Mala observed that the respondent appeared intent on needlessly protracting the proceedings. The remark came strictly in the context of the husband’s failure to enter a reply to the transfer petition and did not represent a judicial finding on his character or intentions regarding the marriage itself.
Taking into account the woman’s employment, place of residence, and child-rearing responsibilities, the judge held that her inability to travel to Thuraiyur constituted a material consideration justifying the relocation of the trial.
Background Of The Marital Discord
The couple entered into an arranged marriage conducted under Hindu rites and traditions on February 11, 2022. Following a one-week stay at the husband’s parental residence in Thuraiyur after the wedding, the couple relocated to Chennai. Their daughter was born on August 30, 2023.
Subsequent domestic differences led the husband to seek dissolution of the marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on the ground of cruelty.
The High Court clarified that its adjudication was limited solely to determining the appropriate forum for the dispute and did not assess the merits of the cruelty allegations or whether the marriage ought to be dissolved. In addition to transferring the case to the Sub Court at Tambaram, the court closed the connected miscellaneous petition and made no order regarding costs.
