O R D E R

The petition for transfer is filed to transfer H.M.O.P.No.303 of

2020 from V Additional Principal Judge, Chennai to the Principal Sub-

ordinate Judge, Cheyyar.

2. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 23.03.2008 as per Hindu Rites and Customs. The matrimonial house was set up at the respondent's residence at Vandavasi. However, the matrimonial life between the petitioner and the respondent was not harmonious. The petitioner states that the respondent never treated her as his wife.

3.Various allegations are raised in the petition and the said allegations are to be adjudicated before the concerned Court. From and out of the wedlock between the petitioner and the respondent, a male child was born on 26.07.2012 at Kancheepuram and another male child was born on 08.07.2015. The family members of the respondent stopped providing food to the petitioner. On account of continuous harassment, she was forced to leave the matrimonial home. The petitioner filed a maintenance case in M.C.No.4 of 2019 under Section 125 (1A)(a)(b) of Cr.P.C and a Domestic Violance case in D.V.C.No.8 of 2019 under Sections 18, 19, 20, 22, 23 (2) of Domestic Violance Act, 2005. This apart, the petitioner filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights before the Sub-Court, Cheyyar. Thereafter, the respondent filed a petition for divorce in H.M.O.P.No.303 of 2020 before the V Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai. Due to the family circumstances and the petitioner has taken care of her two children, the petitioner is unable to contest the case at Chennai. The parents of the petitioner are aged and they are financially weak. Therefore, she is not in a position to travel to Chennai and contest the divorce case filed by the respondent.

4. The principles regarding transfer petitions, more specifically in the matters of matrimonial cases are well settled through the decisions 3 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 has held as follows:-

''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:-

''16.In AIR 2000 SC 3512 (1) (Mona Aresh Goel vs. Aresh Satya Goel), 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.

In 2000 (10) SCC 304, the Honourable Supreme Court has held that where the petitioner's wife has pleaded lack of money, the same has to be considered.

In 2000 (9) SCC 355, the wife has filed a petition to transfer the proceedings initiated by the husband for divorce