The importance of the wife's residence in determining jurisdiction and considering the difficulties faced by the wife in contesting proceedings at a distant location in transfer petitions for matrimonial cases.

ORDER :

PRAYER : Transfer CMP No.522 of 2022 is filed under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code, to withdraw the case in HMOP No.698 of 2020 from the file of the Sub Court at Poonamallee and transfer the same to the file of the Family Court at Chengalpattu.

PRAYER : Transfer CMP No.536 of 2022 is filed under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code, to withdraw the case in GWOP No.24 of 2022 from the file of the Principal District Court at Chengalpattu and transfer the same to the file of the Family Court at Chengalpattu.

The Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition No.522 of 2022 is filed to withdraw the case in HMOP No.698 of 2020 pending on the file of the Sub Court at Poonamallee and transfer the same to the file of the Family Court at Chengalpattu.

2. The Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition No.536 of 2022 is filed to withdraw the case in GWOP No.24 of 2022 pending on the file of the Principal District Court at Chengalpattu and transfer the same to the file of the Family Court at Chengalpattu.

3. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnised on 11.03.2012 as per Hindu Rites and Customs. A male child was born from and out of the wedlock between the petitioner and the respondent on 06.12.2012. Due to misunderstanding, the petitioner and the respondent are living separately.

4. The respondent filed HMOP No.698 of 2020 for dissolution of marriage on the file of the Sub Court at Poonamallee. The respondent filed yet another petition in GWOP No.24 of 2022 pending on the file of the Principal District Court at Chengalpattu.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner made a submission that the petitioner is unemployed and residing with her age-old parents. Thus she is the dependant of her parents even for her livelihood and she has to maintain her minor child. Thus she is not in a position to travel all along from Poonamallee to Chengalpattu and contest the case filed by the respondent for divorce.

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 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