The residence of the wife determines jurisdiction in matrimonial cases, and the court must safeguard the interests and rights of women in such cases.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Transfer CMP is filed under Section 24 r/w 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, to withdraw the F.C.O.P.No.351 of 2019 on the file of the Family Court, Vellore filed by the respondent and transfer the same to the Family Court, Chennai.)

1. The petition for transfer is filed to transfer F.C.O.P.No.351 of 2019 from the Family Court, Vellore to the Family Court, Chennai.

2. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 06.03.2017 as per the Hindu Rites and Customs. The spouses started their matrimonial life happily and on account of certain misunderstanding, the petitioner was forced to leave the matrimonial home. The petitioner states that the respondent physically assaulted her on several times between August 2017 and November 2017 and some times by using a belt. The petitioner further states that the respondent grabbed her hair forcefully which caused severe pain and further threatened to kill the petitioner by breaking a bottle on the head of the petitioner. Due to which, she was forced to leave the matrimonial home. Thereafter, the respondent filed F.C.O.P.No.351 of 2019 for dissolution of marriage on the file of the Family Court, Vellore.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is now residing in her parents house and she is unemployed. Her parents are old aged people and therefore, she has to take care of the parents. Hence, she is not in a position to travel all along from Chennai to Vellore to defend the divorce case filed by the respondent.

4. All the allegations set out in the transfer petition cannot be adjudicated by this Court and the parties have to adjudicate the same with reference to the documents and evidence before the trial Court. As far as the transfer petition is concerned, the petitioner states that she is unemployed and now residing with her parents at Chennai.

5. The principles regarding transfer petitions, more specifically in the matters of matrimonial cases are well settled through the decisions 3 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 teacher. The Government found the difficulties faced by women in the matter of initiation of matrimonial proceedings. The report submitted by the Law Commission as well as National Commission for Women, underlying the need for such amendment so as to enable the women to approach the nearest jurisdictional court to redress their matrimonial grievances, were also taken note of by the Government. Therefore such a beneficial provision meant for the women of our Country should be given a meaningful interpretation by Courts.”

(ii) In yet another case in TR.CMP.Nos.138 and 139 of 2006, dated 30.08.2006, the High Court of Madras has considered the following judgments:-

“16. In AIR 2000 SC 3512 (1) (Mona Aresh Goel vs. Aresh Satya Goel), when the wife pleaded that she was unable to bear the traveling expenses and even to travel alone and stay at Bombay, the Supreme Court ordered transfer of proceedings.

In 2000 (10) SCC 304, the Honourable Supreme Court has held that where the petitioner’s wife has pleaded lack of money, the same has to be considered.

In 2000 (9) SCC 355,