IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Suganya – Petitioner
Versus
N. Tamil Selvan – Respondent
Tr. C.M.P. No. 625 of 2022, C.M.P. No. 10641 of 2022
Decided On : 06-12-2022
Transfer Petition - Matrimonial Jurisdiction - Hindu Marriage Act - Section 19, Section 125 Cr.P.C. - The court discussed the principles of transfer petitions in matrimonial cases and cited relevant judgments from the High Court of Madras and the Supreme Court of India. The court emphasized the importance of considering the residence of the wife in determining jurisdiction and highlighted the legislative intent to safeguard the interests and rights of women in matrimonial proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to transfer a divorce case from the Sub Court at Harur to the Sub Court at Vaniyambadi due to her unemployment, residence with her parents, and the need to care for her 5-year-old twin children.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the wife's place of residence should be preferred in the case, considering her unemployment, responsibility for the twin children, and dependence on her parents.
Issues: Transfer of divorce case based on the wife's place of residence and circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of considering the residence of the wife in determining jurisdiction in matrimonial cases and cited relevant judgments to support the transfer petition.
Final Decision: The Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition was allowed, and the divorce case pending at the Sub Court at Harur was transferred to the Sub Court at Vaniyambadi.
ORDER :
1. The Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed to withdraw the HMOP No. 101 of 2017 pending on the file of the Sub Court at Harur and transfer the same to the file of the Sub Court at Vaniyambadi.
2. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnised on 29.05.2017 as per Hindu Rites and Customs. Due to misunderstanding, the petitioner and the respondent are living separately. Twin children were born from and out of the wedlock.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner-wife is unemployed and now she and her 5 year old twin children are residing along with her parents. While-so, she cannot travel all along from Vaniyambadi to Harur for the purpose of contesting the divorce case filed by the respondent-husband in the Sub Court at Harur, as she has to take care of her twin minor children aged about 5 years.
4. The respondent-husband filed HMOP No. 101 of 2017 for dissolution of marriage before the Sub Court at Harur.
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:
“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 transfer
Archana Singh vs. Surendra Bahadur Singh
Geeta Heera vs. Harish Chander Heera
The special preference given to the wife under Section 19(iii)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act in transfer petitions for matrimonial cases.
The special preference given to the wife to file a petition or defend the case of the husband before the court within whose jurisdiction she resides under Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the special preference given to the wife under Section 19(iii)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act and the consideration of the petitioner's circumstan....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of considering the convenience of the petitioner, especially in cases involving women's rights and safeguarding their interests i....
The special preference given to the wife to file a petition or defend the case of the husband before the court within whose jurisdiction she resides under Section 19(iii)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of considering the wife's place of residence and circumstances in transfer petitions for matrimonial cases, with a focus on safeguar....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of considering the residence of the wife in determining jurisdiction and the need to safeguard the interests and rights of women ....
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 safe....
The court emphasized the intention of the legislator to safeguard the interests and rights of women under Section 19(iii)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act while cautioning against using the special prefe....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.