The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of considering the residence of the wife in determining jurisdiction in matrimonial cases and the need to safeguard the interests and rights of women in such cases.

Headnote:
Transfer - Transfer of Matrimonial Case - Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code - Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act - W.A.No.1181 of 2009, Tr.CMP.Nos.138 and 139 of 2006, TR.CMP(MD)No.108 of 2010 - The court discussed the principles regarding transfer petitions in matrimonial cases and referred to relevant judgments to support its decision. The court emphasized the importance of considering the residence of the wife in determining jurisdiction and highlighted the need to safeguard the interests and rights of women in such cases.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought transfer of a matrimonial case from the I Additional Family Court at Chennai to the Sub Court at Mudukulathur, Ramanathapuram District, citing her residence and financial constraints as reasons for the transfer.
Finding of the Court:

The court allowed the transfer petition, considering the petitioner's circumstances and directed the transfer of the case to the Sub Court at Mudukulathur, Ramanathapuram District.
Issues: The main issue was whether the matrimonial case should be transferred from the I Additional Family Court at Chennai to the Sub Court at Mudukulathur, Ramanathapuram District, based on the petitioner's residence and financial constraints.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principles established in relevant judgments and emphasized the importance of considering the residence of the wife in determining jurisdiction in matrimonial cases.
Final Decision: The Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition was allowed, and the case in HMOP No.4235 of 2021 was transferred to the Sub Court at Mudukulathur, Ramanathapuram District. The court directed the I Additional Family Court at Chennai to transmit the case papers to the Sub Court within four weeks.

ORDER :

PRAYER : This Transfer CMP is filed under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code, to withdraw the case in HMOP No.4235 of 2021 from the file of the I Additional Family Court, Chennai and transfer the same to the file of the Sub Court at Mudukulathur, Ramanathapuram District.

The Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed to withdraw the case in HMOP No.235 of 2021 on the file of the I Additional Family Court at Chennai and transfer the same to the file of the Sub Court at Mudukulathur, Ramanathapuram District.

2. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnised on 02.09.2011 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 now residing along with her parents at Ramanathapuram and she is unemployed. The respondent-husband instituted a case in HMOP No.4235 of 2021 for dissolution of marriage on the file of the I Additional Family Court at Chennai. Since the petitioner is the dependant of her parents, she is not in a position to travel all along from Ramanathapuram to Chennai and contest the case filed by the respondent before the I Additional Family Court at Chennai.

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document