The residence of the wife is a crucial factor in determining jurisdiction in matrimonial cases, as outlined in Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act and supported by relevant case laws.

ORDER :

The petition for transfer is filed to withdraw the GWOP No.1 of 2022 pending on the file of learned District Cum Session Court, Nilgiris, Udhagamandalam and transfer the same to the learned District Court, Salem to try along with GWOP No.11 of 2022.

2. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 15.11.2013 as per Hindu Rites and Customs. One male child was born from and out of the wedlock between the petitioner and the respondent and now living with the petitioner / mother. Due to some misunderstanding, the petitioner and the respondent are living separately. The petitioner filed GWOP No.11 of 2022 on the file of the District Court, Salem. The petitioner further filed HMOP No.111 of 2021 seeking dissolution of marriage, which is also pending on the file of the Sub Court at Omalur, Salem. The respondent/ husband filed GWOP No.1 of 2022 pending on the file of the District cum Session Court, Nilgiris.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is now permanently residing with her parents at Omalur, Salem. She is working in Government Department and recently transferred to Chennai. Further, she has to take care of the child with the assistance of her parents and therefore, she has instituted the case at Salem. When the cases were filed, the petitioner was in Salem and recently she was transferred to Chennai, since she is working in the Government Department. However, the parents of the petitioner is residing at Salem. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated that the cases are to be tried before the Court at Salem.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner by stating that the petitioner is now being transferred at Chennai and therefore, the Court at Salem lost its relevance and thus, this transfer petitioner is to be rejected. It is further contended that the family of the petitioner are threatening the respondent/ husband and he may not be in a position to contest the case at Salem freely and fairly.

5. This Court is of the considered opinion that the three cases are now pending out of which GWOP No.11 of 2022 pending on the file of District Court at Salem and HMOP No.111 of 2021 are pending before the Sub Court at Salem. At the time of filing the above two cases, the petitioner wife was residing at Salem and therefore, she got transferred to Chennai. Since she is working in the Government Department, there is a possibility that again she may seek transfer to Salem or to any nearby place, which cannot be gone into in the present transfer petition.

6. Even otherwise, it is admitted that the respondent/ husband is residing at Nilgiris District. The distance between the Nilgiris and Chennai is far away and contrarily, the distance between the Salem and Nilgiris is lesser than that of the distance to Chennai. Regarding any threat or otherwise, if any and untold incidents happened, it is for the respondent to take appropriate action in the manner known to law. The parties are expected to conduct the cases in a peaceful manner and by respecting each other and they are not expected to indulge in any illegal or other activity.

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 inst