1. This petition is filed seeking transfer of H.M.O.P.No.42 of 2013 from the file of the Principal Sub-Judge, Chengalpattu, Kancheepuram District to the Principal Sub Judge, Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District.

2. In the affidavit filed in support of the transfer petition, the petitioner has averred that the marriage between the petitioner and the first respondent was solemnized on 03.07.2011 at A.V.M. Saradhambal Thirumana Mandapam, G.S.T.Road, Guduvanjeri, Chennai, as per Hindu rites and customs. In the Wedlock, a son viz., Aadhav was born on 10.09.2012. The husband began to doubt her fidelity by alleging that the petitioner had illegal intimacy with the 2nd respondent and picked up quarrel frequently; that after she become pregnant, she had come to her parental home and thereafter her husband nor the relatives visited her.

3. It is further stated that on 24.02.2013, the petitioner had gone to her matrimonial home with her six months' old child, but she was not allowed to enter into the house; that thereafter her husband lodged a complaint with Maraimalai Nagar Police Station and in the enquiry her husband informed that he is initiated divorce proceedings against her. Hence the first respondent filed the H.M.O.P., Seeking dissolution of the marriage before the Sub Court, Chengalpattu.

4. The petitioner is seeking transfer on the ground that she is residing at Alwar Thirunagari in Thoothukudi District and she is dependent on her parents for her lively hood; that she has to travel nearly 600 kms., to attend the Court proceedings and she being a lady accompanying of her family members would cause great prejudice and she is also having 10 months old child and she cannot travel such a long distance. Further it is stated that there is a threat for her and her child at Chengalpattu.

5. Resisting the application, the respondent has filed counter mainly contending that the transfer petition filed before this Court is not maintainable in law and in the counter the 1st respondent has denied the allegations made in the transfer petition.

6. Heard Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.M.Balasubramanian, learned counsel for the first respondent.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the grounds for transfer of the case contending that the petitioner is seeking transfer only on the ground of inconvenience to the petitioner to defend the case before the Sub Court, Chengalpattu. The learned counsel further submitted that part of cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of Sub Court, Thoothukudi. Moreover, the petitioner seeks transfer of the case on convenience and therefore, the petition is maintainable. The learned counsel has relied upon the Judgment of this Court reported in 2006 (4) CTC 835 (Usha @ Ramalakshmi and another Vs. P.Shanmugam) for the proposition that after Amendment of the Hindu Marriage Act, 2003, as per Section 19 of the Act, the petitioner/wife can file a petition with the Court within the jurisdiction she is residing at the time of filing the petition. The learned counsel also relied upon the Division Bench Judgment of this Court reported in 2008 (7) MLJ 1012 (E.Mary Oliviya Vs. E.Jsohua Milton).

8. The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that there is no part of cause of action arisen within the jurisdiction of Thoothukudi and as per Sections 23 and 24 of Civil Procedure Code, the transfer petition is not maintainable before this Court. The learned counsel has relied upon the Judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court reported in I (2013) DMC 24 (CN) (Shailey Madne Vs. Pankaj Kumar Madne) ; the Judgment of the Bombay High Court reported in I (1996) DMC 345 (Sau.Sangeeta Bajirao Suryawanshi Vs. Bajirao Bhimrao Suryawanshi); the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2008) 9 SCC 648 (Durgesh Sharma Vs. Jayshree) ;

9. In the Division Bench Judgment of this Court reported in 2008 (7) MLJ 1012 (E.Mary Oliviya Vs. E.Jsohua Milton) in paragraph