In matrimonial transfer petitions, the wife's convenience is paramount, and jurisdiction is determined by her residence.

ORDER :

(P. Vadamalai, J.)

(PRAYER : Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to withdraw the case in F.C.O.P.No. 229 of 2024 on the file of the District Judge of Family Court, Erode and transfer the same to the Family Court, Trichy.)

This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed seeking for an order to withdraw the F.C.O.P.No.229 of 2024 on the file of Family Court, Erode and to transfer the same to the file of the Family Court, Trichy.

2. The petitioner herein is the wife of the respondent. The marriage between the petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 24.03.2019 according to Hindu customs. Out of wedlock, the petitioner gave birth a male child on 22.05.2021. It is alleged that as the respondent started harassment on the petitioner and demanded more dowry at the instigation of his family members. Hence, misunderstandings arose between them and the petitioner was driven out from the matrimonial home. She is now residing with her parents. Thereafter, the respondent filed the petition in F.C.O.P.No.229 of 2024 before the Family Court, Erode, seeking divorce against the petitioner.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner along with her male child was forced to leave the matrimonial home. She is now residing with her aged parents at Trichy along with her 2 ½ years old child. She is depending on the income of her parents. She has no means to travel 400 km to conduct the case at Erode. Moreover, the respondent has not been paying any maintenance for the petitioner and child. In the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed this present Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent objected the petition. The learned counsel further submitted that there is no proof for the alleged harassment and dowry demand and except for Trichy, the case may be transferred to any other station situated between Erode and Trichy.

5. Submissions of both side considered. The respondent and the petitioner are husband and wife. Due to misunderstandings, they are living separately and in such circumstances, the respondent filed the petition for divorce before the Family Court, Erode. The petitioner is living with her child at Trichy and depending on her parents.

6. The proposition of law regarding transfer petitions, more specifically in the matters of matrimonial cases, is well settled by this Court and also by the Hon’ble Supreme Court 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 paragraph Nos.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.C.M.P(MD)Nos.138 and 139 of 2006, da