The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of considering the convenience of the wife and the legislative intent to safeguard the rights of women in matrimonial proceedings.

ORDER :

1. The Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed to withdraw the case in GWOP No. 172 of 2022 from the file of the Principal District Court at Chengalpet and transfer the same to the file of the any other District Court at Chennai.

2. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnised on 22.01.2018 as per Hindu Rites and Customs. Due to misunderstanding, both the petitioner and the respondent are living separately. A male child was born from and out of the wedlock on 10.12.2019. The male child is now living with the petitioner-wife.

3. The respondent has filed GWOP No. 172 of 2022 on the file of the Principal District Court at Chengalpet.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner-wife is unemployed and residing along with her parents. She has to take care of the minor boy and both the child as well as the petitioner are depending on her parents even for livelihood. Therefore, she is not in a position to travel all along from Chennai to Chengalpet. Hence, the GWOP filed by the respondent is to be transferred to any one of the Court at Chennai.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent raised an objection by stating that the petitioner is frequently changing her residence and that is reason why the case was numbered before the District Court at Chengalpet. Since the petitioner is frequently changing her residence, the transfer petition is to be rejected.

6. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that on account of certain difficulties, the petitioner has shifted her residence to nearby Chennai and therefore, the transfer petition is to be considered.

7. The principles regarding transfer petitions, more specifically in the matters of matrimonial cases, are well settled through the three 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, wherein in paragraphs-21 and 22, it has been observed as under:

“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 of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India:

“(1) In the case of Mona Aresh Goel vs. Aresh Satya Goel, (2000) 9 SCC 255, 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.

(2) In the case of Geeta Heera vs. Harish Chander Heera, (2000) 10 SCC 304, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that where the petitioner's wife has pleaded lack of money, the same has to be considered.

(3) In the case of Lalita A. Ranga vs. Ajay Champalal Ranga, (2000) 9 SCC 355, the wife has filed a petition to tra