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) 907

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Marilakshmi – Appellant
Versus
Manojram – Respondent
Tr.C.M.P.No.576 of 2022 and C.M.P.No.10107 of 2022
Decided on : 06-12-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Ms.K.R.Vinodhinee
For the Respondent: Mr.M.Muralivinodh

The court emphasized the importance of considering the difficulties faced by the wife and the special preference given to the wife under Section 19(iii)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act in determining the jurisdiction for matrimonial cases.

Headnote:

Transfer CMP - Transfer of Case - Civil Procedure Code, Section 24, Hindu Marriage Act, Section 19(iii)(a) - The court discussed the principles regarding transfer petitions in matrimonial cases and cited relevant judgments to support the transfer of the case from Sub Court, Kovilpatti to Family Court, Coimbatore. The court emphasized the importance of considering the difficulties faced by the wife and the special preference given to the wife to file a petition or defend the case in the court within whose jurisdiction she resides under Section 19(iii)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code to withdraw the case in HMOP No.238 of 2019 from the Sub Court, Kovilpatti and transfer it to the Family Court, Coimbatore. The petitioner, who is unemployed and residing with her parents, has two minor children studying in Coimbatore and is unable to travel from Kovilpatti to Coimbatore for the purpose of contesting the case filed by the respondent-husband.

Finding of the Court:

The court allowed the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition and directed the Sub Court at Kovilpatti to transmit the case papers to the Family Court, Coimbatore for expeditious disposal, considering the difficulties faced by the petitioner and the special preference given to the wife under Section 19(iii)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

Issues: Transfer of matrimonial case from Sub Court, Kovilpatti to Family Court, Coimbatore under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code.

Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the difficulties faced by the petitioner-wife and the special preference given to the wife under Section 19(iii)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act in determining the jurisdiction for the case.

Final Decision: The Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition stands allowed, and the case in HMOP No.238 of 2019 pending at the Sub Court, Kovilpatti is transferred to the Family Court, Coimbatore for expeditious disposal.

ORDER :

PRAYER : This Transfer CMP is filed under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code, to withdraw the case in HMOP No.238 of 2019 on the file of the Sub Court, Kovilpatti and transfer the same to the file of Family Court, Coimbatore.

The Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed to withdraw the case in HMOP No.238 of 2019 on the file of the Sub Court, Kovilpatti and transfer the same to the file of the Family Court, Coimbatore.

2. The petitioner married the respondent and on account of misunderstanding, they are living separately. Two children were born from and out of the wedlock.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner-wife is unemployed and residing along with her parents. She has to take care of two minor children, who are studying in Coimbatore. Under these circumstances, she is not in a position to travel all along from Kovilpatti to Coimbatore for the purpose of contesting the HMOP filed by the respondent-husband.

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.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. 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 Allaha

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