The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of considering the residence of the wife in determining jurisdiction in matrimonial cases, as provided in Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act, and the legislative intent to safeguard the interests of women in such proceedings.

Headnote:
Transfer - Matrimonial Dispute - Civil Procedure Code, Section 24, Hindu Marriage Act, Section 19 - The court discussed the principles regarding transfer petitions in matrimonial cases and referred to relevant case laws and legal provisions. The court emphasized the importance of considering the residence of the wife in determining jurisdiction and highlighted the legislative intent to safeguard the interests of women in matrimonial proceedings.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code to transfer a matrimonial case from the Sub Court at Madurantagam to the Family Court at Chennai. The petitioner and the respondent were living separately, and the petitioner sought the transfer due to securing employment in Chennai.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the place of the wife was to be preferred in the present case, considering her work location in Chennai, and accordingly ordered the transfer of the case to the Family Court at Chennai.
Issues: The main issue was the transfer of the matrimonial case from one court to another based on the petitioner's change of residence and employment location.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principles of jurisdiction based on the residence of the wife, as provided in Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act, and emphasized the legislative intent to safeguard the interests of women in matrimonial proceedings.
Final Decision: The Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition was allowed, and the case was transferred from the Sub Court at Madurantagam to the Family Court at Chennai, with no order as to costs.

ORDER :

PRAYER : This Transfer CMP is filed under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code, to withdraw the HMOP No.68 of 2019 on the file of the Sub Court at Madurantagam and transfer the same to the file of the Family Court at Chennai.

The Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed to withdraw the HMOP No.68 of 2019 pending on the file of the Sub Court at Madurantagam 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 18.04.2019 as per Hindu Rites and Customs. Due to misunderstanding, the petitioner and the respondent are living separately.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner-wife herself instituted the matrimonial proceedings in HMOP No.68 of 2019 for divorce. Now the petitioner secured employment at Chennai and working in a Hospital.

4. That being the factum, she has filed the present Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition to transfer the case from Sub Court, Madurantagam to the Family Court at Chennai. The respondent-husband, despite the service of notice, not responded in respect of the transfer petition filed by the petitioner-wife.

5. 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 transfer petition.

(4) In a decision in Archana Singh vs. Sure

Click Here to Read the rest of this document