ORDER :

1. The petition for transfer is filed to withdraw HMOP No.219 of 2020 on the file of the Subordinate Judge at Sivakasi, Virudhunagar District and transfer the same to the Subordinate Judge at Thiruvottiyur, Thiruvallur District.

2. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnised on 30.10.1998 as per the Hindu Rites and Customs. Two children were born from the wedlock and both are daughters. The first daughter has got married and living separately. The second daughter is living with the petitioner. The respondent / husband filed HMOP No.219 of 2020 on the file of Sub-Court, Sivakasi, Virudhunagar District for dissolution of marriage.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is unemployed and depending on her parents for her livelihood. Therefore, she is not in a position to spend, travel and contest the case filed by the respondent / husband in HMOP No.219 of 2020 on the file of Sub-Court, Sivakasi, Virudhunagar District. The petitioner is now residing at Thiruvottiyur, Thiruvallur District and thus the case has to be transferred for effective adjudication.

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 allowed the transfer petition.

(4) In a decision in Archana Singh vs. Surendra Bahadur Singh [(2005) 12 SCC 395], the wife has s