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

ORDER :

1. The present Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed to withdraw the HMOP No. 301 of 2021, pending on the file of Sub Court at Tambaram and transfer the same to the file of the Principal Sub Court at Hosur.

2. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnised on 04.09.2019 as per Hindu Rites and Customs. Due to misunderstanding, both the petitioner and the respondent are living separately. A female child was born from and out of the wedlock and aged about 2 years under the custody of the petitioner.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that she has to take care of the 2 year old female child and now she is residing along with her parents at Hosur. The petitioner-wife filed HMOP No. 20 of 2022 before the Principal Sub Court at Hosur for dissolution of marriage and the respondent filed HMOP No. 301 of 2022 before the Sub Court at Tambaram for restitution of conjugal rights. Thus the said proceedings filed by the respondent to be transferred to the Principal Sub Court at Hosur for contesting the case.

4. The respondent-husband filed HMOP No. 301 of 2021 for restitution of conjugal rights before the Sub Court at Tambaram.

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 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