The marriage between the petitioner and respondent has been solemnized on 27.05.2001 as per the Hindu rites and customs at Thiruchengode. Due to strained relationship between the parties, the respondent left the matrimonial home and now she is living along with her parents at Nagercoil. The petitioner/husband seeks transfer of H.M.O.P.No.19 of 2016 pending before the Sub Court, Thiruchengode to Family Court, Trichy to be tried along with H.M.O.P.No.434 of 2015, which was filed by the petitioner seeking divorce.

2. The contention of the respondent is that out of the wedlock, a female child was born to her on 09.12.2003 and due to misunderstanding between the petitioner and respondent, the petitioner has committed an act of cruelty and the respondent was forced to leave the matrimonial home. Subsequently, the respondent filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights before the Subordinate Court, Thiruchengode and the petitioner filed a petition for divorce, which is pending before the Family Court, Trichy.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that Section 21-A of the Hindu Marriage Act enumerates that the subsequent petition filed by the respondent is to be transferred to be tried along with the petition filed by the petitioner, which is earlier.

4. Such a logic is not applicable in the matrimonial cases in view of Section 19 (iii-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, which says that in case the wife is the petitioner, where she is residing on the date of presentation of the petition has jurisdiction. Amendment to Section 19(iii) was interpreted in the case in Tr.C.M.P.(MD) No.108 of 2010, dated 03.03.2011, wherein this Court held as follows:

“18. It is true that Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act, has been amended by the insertion of proviso of (iii)(a) to Section 19. Of course, this amended Section 9(iii)(a) gives special preference to the wife to file a petition or defending the case of the husband before the Court within whose jurisdiction she resides. The intention of the legislator is to safe-guard the interest and rights of the women, who are being subjected to harassment and cruelty. But this special preference conferred under section 19(iii)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act shall not be used to wreck vengeance on the husband. There must be a justifiable cause to select the jurisdiction of the Court where she resides.”

5. The learned counsel for the respondent opposed this petition by stating that the respondent was forced to leave the matrimonial home at the instance of the petitioner and not at her own volition and further contended that respondent filed petition for restitution of conjugal rights and she is ready and willing for re-union and it is the petitioner, who filed petition for divorce. Therefore, the present petition deserves no consideration.

6. Considering the arguments and the counter arguments of the respective counsels, this Court is of the opinion that the principles regarding transfer petitions, more specifically in the matters of matrimonial cases in respect of women, are well settled through the decisions of the High Court of Madras, in the following cases:-

(i) The Hon'ble Division Bench of the High Court of Madras in W.A.No.1181 of 2009, dated 09.07.2010 has held as follows:-

''21. The domicile or citizenship of the opposite party is immaterial in a case like this. In case the marriage was solemnized under Hindu Law marital relationship is governed by the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act. Therefore, Section 19 has to be given a purposeful interpretation. It is the residence of the wife, which determines the question of jurisdiction, in case the proceeding was initiated at the instance of the wife.

22. While considering a provision like Section 19 (iii-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, the objects and reasons which prompted the parliament to incorporate such a provision has also to be taken note of. Sub Clause (iii-a) was inserted in Section 19 with a specific purpose. Experience is the best