SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Mad) 932

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Sangeetha – Petitioner
Versus
Babu @ Sanjeevi – Respondent
Tr. C.M.P. No. 1096 of 2022, C.M.P. No. 18841 of 2022
Decided On : 08-12-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: J.T. Ajitha.
For the Respondents: B. Harish, K.M. Vijayan.

The special preference given to the wife to file a petition or defend the case of the husband before the court within whose jurisdiction she resides under Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

Headnote:

Transfer Petition - Matrimonial Jurisdiction - Hindu Marriage Act - Section 19, Section 125 Cr.P.C. - The court discussed the principles regarding transfer petitions in matrimonial cases, citing relevant judgments and interpretations of the High Court of Madras and the Supreme Court of India. The court emphasized the special preference given to the wife to file a petition or defend the case of the husband before the court within whose jurisdiction she resides, while also cautioning against the misuse of this provision to wreck vengeance on the husband.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition to withdraw a case from the Principal Sub Court at Mayiladuthurai and transfer it to the Family Court at Villupuram due to the petitioner's inability to travel frequently from Villupuram to Mayiladuthurai to contest the case filed by the respondent.

Finding of the Court:

The court allowed the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition, considering the petitioner's circumstances and directed the transfer of the case from the Principal Sub Court, Mayiladuthurai to the Family Court, Villupuram.

Issues: The main issue was the transfer of the matrimonial case from one court to another based on the petitioner's inability to travel frequently to contest the case.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principles regarding transfer petitions in matrimonial cases, emphasizing the special preference given to the wife to file a petition or defend the case of the husband before the court within whose jurisdiction she resides.

Final Decision: The Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition was allowed, and the case was directed to be transferred from the Principal Sub Court, Mayiladuthurai to the Family Court, Villupuram.

ORDER :

1. The Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed to withdraw the case in HMOP No. 191 of 2022 from the file of the Principal Sub Court at Mayiladuthurai and transfer the same to the file of the Family Court at Villupuram.

2. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnised on 06.02.2022 as per Hindu Rites and Customs. Due to misunderstanding, both the petitioner and the respondent are living separately.

3. The respondent has filed HMOP No. 191 of 2022 before the Principal Sub Court at Mayiladuthurai to declare the marriage as null and void.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is unemployed and residing along with her parents at Salamedu, Villupuram District. Since the petitioner is depending on her parents, she is not in a position to travel all along from Villupuram to Mayiladuthurai and contest the case filed by the respondent before the Principal Sub Court, Mayiladuthurai.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent raised an objection by stating that he is working as Assistant in the Government Hospital and he cannot avail leave frequently. The said reason cannot be considered as valid one for the purpose of not considering the case of the petitioner.

6. 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 transfer the proceedings initiated by the husband for divorce, at Bombay. The place of residence of the wife was at Jaipur, Rajasthan. In that case, the petitioner is having a small child and that she pleaded difficulty in going all the way from Jaipur to Bombay to contest the proceedings from time to time. Considering the distance and the difficulties faced by the wife, the Supreme Court has allowed the transfe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top