IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 26.03.2018

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA

Tr.C.M.P.No.244 of 2017

and C.M.P.No.4377 of 2017

Saranya

.. Petitioner/Respondent

Vs.

A.Sabarison

.. Respondent/Petitioner

Prayer :

Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 24

of the Code of Civil Procedure praying to withdraw GWOP No.6 of

2017 pending before the Principal District Judge at

Tiruchirapalli and transfer the same to the file of the

Principal District Judge at Villupuram.

* * *

For Petitioner

:

Ms.Sasikala

for Mr.K.J.Saravanan

For Respondent

:

Mr.M.Rajamohan

J U D G E M E N T

The wife in a matrimonial proceedings has preferred the

above Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition seeking transfer of

G.W.O.P.No.6 of 2017 pending on the file of the Principal

District Court, Thiruchirapalli, to the Principal District

Court, Villupuram.

2. The respondent/husband has filed H.M.O.P.No.385 of 2016

on the file of the Subordinate Court, Thiruchirapalli, which is

pending. The petitioner/wife has filed H.M.O.P.No.13 of 2017 for

divorce on the file of the Subordinate Court, Villupuram, which

is also pending. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support

of the petition that the petitioner/wife had to pass through

rough weather in the matrimonial life. The marriage was

admittedly solemnised in Villupuram. After the marriage, the

petitioner husband had lived in Raigarh, Chattisgarh, where he

was employed. Later, the respondent had been in Sri Harikota and

joined another company in Uttar Pradesh. Later on, he returned

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

to Thathayangarpettai, Thiruchirapalli.

2.1. It is specifically stated in the affidavit that the

respondent had been harassing the petitioner in many ways from

the date of the marriage. She had been insulted, abused and was

demanded to pay money from her family. Unable to tolerate the

insult and ill-treatment, it is stated that the petitioner/wife

had returned to her parents house in Villupuram. Even there, the

respondent/husband came and assaulted the father of the

petitioner and abducted the minor son, which was only four years

old. Though a police complaint was given, it was later not

pressed. Therefore, it is the specific case of the petitioner

that she was forced to live in the parental house to safeguard

herself from the physical assault inflicted on her by the

respondent/husband.

2.2. In paragraph 11 of the affidavit, it is stated that she

is now permanently living in Villupuram with her minor son under

the care and custody of her parents. As the GWOP has been filed

before the District Court, Thiruchirapalli, the petitioner has

expressed her difficulty in travelling about more than 165

kilometers, with minor child, besides apprehending danger in the

hands of the respondent/husband. Hence, the transfer has been

sought for.

3. The petition was resisted by the respondent/husband by

filing a counter affidavit. It is contended that only the

Principal District Court at Thiruchirapalli is competent to try

the GWOP, as the cause of action arose only within the

jurisdiction of the said Court. It is further stated that

before removal from Thiruchirapalli, the minor child was

ordinarily residing there. Hence, only the District Court

Thiruchirapalli, has got jurisdiction. Learned counsel appearing

for the respondent/ husband also placed reliance on Sandhiya V.

D.Gunasekaran, 2010-5-L.W. 1023. Reliance was also placed on

V.N.Sudanandan V. Dr.Chitra, 1999-2-L.W. 370.

4. In Sandhiya V. D.Gunasekaran, 2010-5-L.W. 1023, the

judgement of this Court in Bhagyalakshmi V. Narayana Rao, AIR

1983 Madras 9, was relied on, wherein, it is stated that a

temporary residence cannot be equated to the place of ordinary

residence. The residence of the minor along with the mother at

maternal ho