The wife is the petitioner and the husband is the respondent in the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition. The respondent herein/husband filed HMOP No.110/2016 on the file of the Family Court, Chennai, which is now pending on the file of the I Additional Judge, Family court, Chennai, for a decree of divorce dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent herein. The petitioner in the transfer civil miscellaneous petition (wife) has now come forward with the present petition for the transfer of the above said OP, namely HMOP No.110/2016 to the file of the Family Court, Coimbatore, within whose jurisdiction she resides. The respondent has filed a counter containing several allegations pertaining to the merits of the main HMOP.

2. The arguments advanced by Ms. P.T.Asha, learned counsel for the petitioner and by Mr.G.K. Harihara Rajan, learned counsel for the respondent are heard. The materials produced in the form of typed set of papers are also perused.

3. Ms.P.T.Asha, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that after the introduction of Section 19(iii-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the place of residence of the wife is also made a place wherein the matrimonial OP can be filed, either it be a petition filed by the husband or a petition filed by the wife; that as such, the prayer made by the petitioner for the transfer of the HMOP to the Family Court, Coimbatore is nothing but a prayer for the transfer of the case from one court having jurisdiction to the other court having jurisdiction regarding the very same matter; that if at all the prayer has been made for transferring the HMOP to a court within whose jurisdiction the cause of action did not arise and in which court the petition could not have been filed, then the objection made by the respondent would have some substance in it and that the prayer made by the petitioner (wife) for the transfer of the HMOP from one jurisdictional court to the other jurisdictional court on the ground of convenience should be liberally considered in favour of wife, so as to give a meaningful effect to the intention of the Legislature in enacting Section 19(iii-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

4. The following are the grounds on which the learned counsel for the respondent/husband resists the application for transfer of the HMOP from the file of the I Additional Judge, Family Court, Chennai to the file of the Family Court, Coimbatore:

(i) The petitioner (wife) gave birth to a premature child, as the child was born one month prior to the expected date of delivery and against the wishes and advice of the respondent herein (husband), the petitioner herein took the child all the way from Chennai to Coimbatore covering a distance of 500 KM, unmindful of the risk involved to the child and the same will show the intention of the petitioner (wife) to change her residence and drag the respondent (husband) to a place inconvenient to him; and

(ii) The apprehension expressed by the petitioner (wife) in the supporting affidavit that pressures would be applied on the Family Courts at Chennai, since the mother-in-law of the petitioner is a Judicial Member in the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and husband and other in-laws of the petitioner are practising lawyers in Chennai, cannot be accepted to be either genuine or a sufficient reason for seeking transfer of the HMOP from Chennai to Coimbatore. The said contention of the petitioner may even amount to scandalising court and undermining the dignity of the court in which the HMOP is pending.

5. The above said objections are dealt with in the reverse order. No doubt the petitioner has made an averment in the supporting affidavit that she apprehends that some kind of pressure may be applied on the Judge of the Family Court, Chennai, because the mother of the respondent is a Judicial Member of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Merely because the mother of the respondent is a Judicial Member of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, it cannot be as