Divorce case nearly 300 km away, Madras High Court comes to Chennai woman’s aid

Madras High Court found the balance of convenience favoured the woman, who cited difficulties travelling with her three-year-old daughter. (Image generated using AI)

A three-year-old daughter, a full-time job and a divorce case nearly 300 km away made it difficult for a Chennai woman to fight her legal battle. Nearly a year after her husband filed for divorce in 2025, the Madras High Court has transferred the case from Thuraiyur in Tiruchirappalli district to Tambaram, observing that in matrimonial disputes, the wife’s convenience takes precedence over the husband’s.

Justice N Mala was hearing a transfer petition filed by the woman seeking to move the divorce case filed by her husband, Vigneshwaran, in 2025.

“In matrimonial cases, the convenience of the wife takes precedence over the husbands. Considering the specific averments of the petitioner that she is not able to travel along with her 3 year old child, to Thoraiyur to contest the case, I am inclined to allow this Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition, since I find that the balance of convenience is more in favour of the petitioner,” the court said on October 5. The court also said the balance of convenience favoured the woman because she had said she could not travel to Thuraiyur with her young child to contest the case.

The couple married on February 11, 2022, in an arranged marriage solemnised according to Hindu rites and customs. Their daughter was born on August 30, 2023. The husband later filed for divorce on the ground of cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The high court’s order dealt with where that case should be heard, not whether the marriage should be dissolved.

Justice N Mala transferred the divorce case to Tambaram, holding that the wife’s convenience takes precedence in matrimonial disputes. (Image enhanced using AI)

Wife cited work, childcare responsibilities

According to the order, the woman stayed at her husband’s parental home for a week after the wedding in Thuraiyur. The couple then moved to Chennai to begin their married life. Matrimonial differences later arose, and the husband filed the divorce petition before the Sub Court at Thuraiyur in 2025.

The woman informed the high court that she works at a private real estate firm in Chennai and was living with her daughter at her parental home. She had initially stayed with her parents in Kanchipuram before moving to Ramapuram in Chennai, the order recorded.

Her transfer request was based mainly on the difficulty of travelling from Chennai to Thuraiyur with her daughter to attend the proceedings. She said managing the journey while caring for a young child was difficult. She also stated that her husband worked at Siruseri in Chennai alleging that he had filed the divorce case at Thuraiyur despite working in the Chennai region, making it harder for her to contest it.

Story continues below this ad

These were her submissions recorded in the order, rather than findings determining the merits of the divorce dispute. She asked the high court to withdraw the case from the Thuraiyur court and transfer it to the Sub Court at Tambaram.

Husband did not file counter

Noting that the husband had received notice in the transfer proceedings on February 5, 2026, but had not filed a counter affidavit denying his wife’s allegations, including her statement that he worked at Siruseri.

The judge observed, “It is clear that the respondent only wants to drag on the proceedings.” The remark appeared in the court’s discussion of the husband’s failure to file a response after receiving notice. The order does not independently establish his intention, and the observation should not be read as a finding on the allegations of cruelty in the divorce petition.

Justice N Mala considered the woman’s employment in Chennai, her residence in Ramapuram and her responsibility for a three-year-old child. The court said her specific claim that she could not travel with the child to Thuraiyur was a relevant consideration and found that the balance of convenience was in her favour.

Story continues below this ad

The high court allowed the transfer petition and ordered that the divorce case pending before the Sub Court at Thuraiyur be withdrawn and transferred to the Sub Court at Tambaram. The connected miscellaneous petition was closed, and the court made no order as to costs.

Vineet Upadhyay is an Assistant Editor with The Indian Express (Digital), where he leads specialized coverage of the Indian judicial system. Expertise Specialized Legal Authority: Vineet has spent the better part of his career analyzing the intricacies of the law. His expertise lies in "demystifying" judgments from the Supreme Court of India, various High Courts, and District Courts. His reporting covers a vast spectrum of legal issues, including: Constitutional & Civil Rights: Reporting on landmark rulings regarding privacy, equality, and state accountability. Criminal Justice & Enforcement: Detailed coverage of high-profile cases involving the Enforcement Directorate (ED), NIA, and POCSO matters. Consumer Rights & Environmental Law: Authoritative pieces on medical negligence compensation, environmental protection (such as the "living person" status of rivers), and labor rights. Over a Decade of Professional Experience: Prior to joining The Indian Express, he served as a Principal Correspondent/Legal Reporter for The Times of India and held significant roles at The New Indian Express. His tenure has seen him report from critical legal hubs, including Delhi and Uttarakhand. ... Read More