The legal principle established is the importance of the wife's residence in determining jurisdiction in matrimonial cases and the need to safeguard the interests and rights of women in such proceedings.

ORDER :

PRAYER : This Transfer CMP is filed under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code, to withdraw the case in HMOP No.13 of 2020 from the file of the Sub Court at Poonamallee and transfer the same to the file of the Family Court at Thiruvannamalai.

The present Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed to withdrawn the withdraw the case in HMOP No.13 of 2020 pending on the file of the Sub Court at Poonamallee and transfer the same to the file of the Family Court at Thiruvannamalai.

2. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnised on 12.09.2019 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 she is unemployed and now the petitioner is residing along with her parents at Thiruvannamalai and therefore, she is not in a position to travel all along from Thiruvannamalai to Poonamallee to contest the divorce case filed by the respondent in HMOP No.13 of 2020 on the file of the Sub Court at Poonamallee.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent raised an objection by stating that the petitioner is already filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights in FCOP No.29 of 2022, which is pending before the Family Court at Thiruvannamalai. The brother of the petitioner is a practicing Lawyer and causing trouble to the respondent, while attending the Court in Thiruvannamalai. In the event of any such incident, the respondent is at liberty to approach the Jurisdictional Police for appropriate action. The petitioner is also expected to ensure that no untoward incident happens during the hearing dates in the Court premises at Thiruvannamalai.

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 Rang