ORDER :

Prayer: This Transfer CMP is filed under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code, to withdraw the case in HMOP No. 105 of 2022 from the file of the Sub Court at Villupuram and transfer the same to the file of the Sub Court at Mayiladuthurai.

1. The present Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed to withdraw the case in HMOP No. 105 of 2022 from the file of the Sub Court at Villupuram and transfer the same to the file of the Sub Court at Mayiladuthurai.

2. The marriage between the petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband was solemnised on 12.02.2014 as per Hindu Rites and Customs. Out of the wedlock between the petitioner and the respondent, one male child was born to them now aged 7 year. Due to misunderstanding the petitioner and the respondent are now living separately.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is unemployed and she and her 7 year old minor male child are living with her parents at Kuthalam Taluk, Nagapattinam District. The petitioner and her minor male child are depending on her parents in all respects. Thus she is not in a position to travel all along from Kuthalam Taluk, Nagapattinam District to Villupuram to contest the divorce case filed by the respondent in HMOP No. 105 of 2022 pending on the file of the Sub Court at Villupuram.

4. In the present case, the transfer of the case is to be considered, since the petitioner and her minor male child are living along with her parents at Kuthalam Taluk, Nagapattinam District. That being the case, the case filed by the respondent in HMOP No. 105 of 2022 pending on the file of the Sub Court at Villupuram is to be transferred to the place, where the petitioner now resides.

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,