ORDER :

[Prayer: Transfer CMP is filed under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code, to withdraw the H.M.O.P.No.4996 of 2022 on the file of VI Additional Family Court, Chennai and transfer the same to Sub-Court Thiruvottiyur.]

1. The petition for transfer is filed to withdraw the H.M.O.P.No.4996 of 2022 on the file of VI Additional Family Court, Chennai and transfer the same to Sub-Court, Thiruvottiyur.

2. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnised on 03.03.2021 as per the Hindu Rites and Customs. Due to misunderstanding the petitioner and the respondent are living separately. The respondent filed H.M.O.P.No.4996 of 2022 for Restitution of Conjugal Rights, which is now pending on the file of VI Additional Family Court, Chennai. The petitioner filed I.A.No.1811 of 2022 in unnumbered H.M.O.P.SR.No.--of 2022 for Dissolution of Marriage. The Interlocutory Application was filed seeking permission of the Court to file H.M.O.P for Dissolution of Marriage through power holder. The petition for divorce is filed by the petitioner before the Family Court at Madurai.

3. The respondent/wife, who is residing at Bharathidasan Street Periyar Nagar, Vyasarpadi, Chennai as per the description provided in the cause title filed in the present Transfer Petition. The learned counsel for the respondent states that the respondent is residing at Madhavaram, Chennai as that it may be. In any case, the respondent/wife is residing nearby Chennai and therefore, the case filed by the respondent cannot be transferred from the Family Court, Chennai to Thiruvottiyur and it would cause prejudice to the interest of the respondent/wife. That apart, the petitioner had already filed a petition for divorce before the Family Court at Madurai, which is also to be tried together, since the petition for Restitution of Conjugal Rights is pending before the Family Court Chennai.

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