In matrimonial cases, the wife's residence and difficulties faced by the parties are crucial factors in determining the transfer of cases.

ORDER :

PRAYER : This Transfer CMP is filed under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code, to withdraw the IA No.82 of 2022 in HMOP No.Unnumbered of 2022 on the file of the learned Family Court Judge in Villupuram and to transfer the same to the file of the learned Principal Family Court at Chengalpattu at Chengalpattu District.

The Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed to withdraw the IA No.82 of 2022 in HMOP No.Unnumbered of 2022 on the file of the Family Court at Villupuram and to transfer the same to the file of the Principal Family Court at Chengalpattu.

2. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnised on 26.08.2021 at Guduvanchery as per Hindu Rites and Customs. Due to misunderstanding, the petitioner and the respondent are living separately and the respondent filed HMOP before the Family Court at Villupuram. Since the period of one year has not expired, the HMOP was numbered and the petitioner filed IA No.82 of 2022 to dispense with the period of one year. As of now the period of one year is expired. Therefore, the HMOP is to be numbered.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner-wife now living along with her parents and she is unemployed. While-so, she cannot travel all along from Oorapakkam to Villupuram for the purpose of contesting the case in the Family Court at Villupuram.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent objected the said contention raised on behalf of the petitioner by stating that the respondent was attacked by the family members of the petitioner and a criminal case was registered. Therefore, in the event of transferring the HMOP from Villupuram to Chengalpattu, the respondent may not be in a position to effectively contest the case before the Court at Chengalpattu.

5. The dispute aroused on account of the matrimony and as far as the transfer petition is concerned, the petitioner is unemployed and now she is depending on her parents. While-so, the factual circumstances in this aspect are to be considered. The petitioner is residing at Oorapakkam, which is the Kancheepuram District. However, she seeks transfer to Family Court at Chengalpattu. This being the factum, the contention of the respondent deserves no merit consideration.

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 judg