The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of considering the convenience of the petitioner, especially in cases involving women's rights and safeguarding their interests in matrimonial proceedings.

Headnote:
Transfer Petition - Transfer of Matrimonial Case - Hindu Marriage Act - Section 19, Section 125 Cr.P.C. - The court discussed the principles regarding transfer petitions in matrimonial cases and cited relevant judgments from the High Court of Madras and the Supreme Court of India. The court emphasized the importance of considering the convenience of the petitioner, especially in cases involving women's rights and safeguarding their interests. The court relied on the provisions of Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act and the intention of the legislator to protect the rights of women in matrimonial proceedings.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition to withdraw the case from the Sub Court at Ulundurpet and transfer it to the Family Court at Chennai due to her work and the need to take care of her 5-year-old child.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that it was preferable to transfer the case to the Family Court at Chennai for the convenience of the petitioner, considering her work and childcare responsibilities.
Issues: The main issue was the transfer of the matrimonial case from the Sub Court at Ulundurpet to the Family Court at Chennai based on the petitioner's circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principles of convenience and the provisions of Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act to decide in favor of transferring the case to the Family Court at Chennai.
Final Decision: The Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition was allowed, and the case was transferred to the Family Court at Chennai. There was no order as to costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

ORDER :

1. The Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed to withdraw the case in HMOP No. 60 of 2021 from the file of the Sub Court at Ulundurpet and transfer the same to the file of the Family Court at Chennai.

2. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnised on 01.05.2015 as per Hindu Rites and Customs. Due to misunderstanding, both the petitioner and the respondent are living separately. A female child was born from and out of the wedlock and is aged about 5 years old.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner and the female child now aged about 5 years old are living with her parents. The petitioner is working as Typist at Chennai on temporary basis. She has to take care of her 5 years old female child. Thus she is not in a position to travel all along from Chennai to Ulundurpet and contest the HMOP No. 60 of 2021 filed by the respondent for dissolution of marriage before the Sub Court at Ulundurpet.

4. 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. C.M.P. 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 transfer petition.

(4) In a decision in Archana Singh vs. Surendra Bahadur Singh, (2005) 12 SCC 395, the wife has sought for transfer of matrimonial proceedings and a divorce petition has been filed by the respondent's husband at Baikunthpur to be transferred to Alla

Click Here to Read the rest of this document