ORDER :

Prayer: Transfer CMP is filed under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code, to withdraw and transfer H.M.O.P.No.44 of 2022 pending on the file of the Family Court, Dharmapuri to the Learned Principal Sub-Judge, Hosur and hear along with H.M.O.P.No.72 of 2022 pending before the Principal Sub-Judge, Hosur.

The petition for transfer is filed to withdraw and transfer H.M.O.P.No.44 of 2022 pending on the file of the Family Court, Dharmapuri to the Principal Sub Court, Hosur and to be tried along with H.M.O.P.No.72 of 2022 pending before the Principal Sub Court, Hosur.

2. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnised on 25.03.2021 as per the Hindu Rites and Customs. Due to misunderstanding the petitioner and the respondent are living separately. The petitioner filed H.M.O.P.No.72 of 2022 for Restitution of Conjugal Rights now pending on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Hosur, Krishnagiri District. However, the respondent wife filed H.M.O.P.No.44 of 2022 for Dissolution of Marriage pending on the file of the Family Court, Dharmapuri.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is working at Hosur and therefore, the divorce case filed by the respondent wife is to be transferred to the Principal Sub Court at Hosur.

4. Place of wife is to be considered for the purpose of transferring a case. The respondent is native of Dharmapuri and her parents are also residing at Dharmapuri. Though the petitioner states that the respondent is working at Bangalore, she has already instituted a petition for divorce before the Family Court at Dharmapuri. Since the respondent filed the divorce petition before the Family court at Dharmapuri, the other case filed by the petitioner is also to be tried along with the divorce case, which is now pending before the Family Court at Dharmapuri.

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