Madras High Court

D.Sangeetha vs Sivabakkiyam on 17 February, 2021

                                                                              Tr.C.M.P.No.29 of 2021


                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                               DATED : 17.02.2021

                                                    CORAM

                                   THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

                                              Tr.C.M.P.No.29 of 2021
                                                       and
                                              C.M.P.No.1012 of 2021

                     1.D.Sangeetha
                     2.Minor D.Vishal
                     3.Minor D.Suthiksha                                     ..Petitioners
                                                       Vs.

                     1.Sivabakkiyam
                     2.P.Shanmugasundaram
                     3.C.Gnanavel
                     4.The Divisional Officer,
                       United India Insurance Company Limited,
                       No.13 – A, Nethaji Road,
                       Manjakuppam, Cuddalore – 607 001.                    ..Respondents

                     Prayer : Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 24 of
                     Code of Civil Procedure praying to withdraw the M.C.O.P.No.951 of
                     2020, on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Cuddalore and to
                     transfer the same to the file of Additional District Judge, Hosur and to
                     try along with M.C.O.P.No. 303 of 2020.

                     1/10




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                                                Tr.C.M.P.No.29 of 2021


                                     For Petitioners    : Mr.C.Prabakaran

                                     For Respondents : No appearance for R1 to R3
                                                       Mr.P.Sankaranarayanan for R4


                                                       JUDGMENT

The petition for transfer is filed to transfer M.C.O.P.No.951 of

2020 from Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Cuddalore to the

Additional District Judge, Hosur, and to try along with M.C.O.P.No.303

of 2020.

2. The mother-in-law of the first petitioner is residing at

Cuddalore. The husband of the first petitioner met with an accident and

died. In view of the fact that the mother of the deceased is residing at

Cuddalore, she filed M.C.O.P.No.951 of 2020 before the Motor

Accidents Claims Tribunal, Cuddalore. However, the petitioner/wife and

two children of the deceased filed another M.C.O.P.No.303 of 2020

before the Additional District Court, Hosur, Krishnagiri District.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Tr.C.M.P.No.29 of 2021

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the wife has to

take care of the minor daughter and son and has no other independent

source of income. Therefore, she is not in a position to travel all along

from Hosur to cuddalore and contest the case. This apart, two M.C.O.Ps

are filed in two different Courts which will lead to conflicts of decisions

and multiplicity of proceedings. This being the factum, both claim

petitions are to be decided together in the interest of the parties.

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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Tr.C.M.P.No.29 of 2021

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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Tr.C.M.P.No.29 of 2021

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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Tr.C.M.P.No.29 of 2021

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, at Bombay. The place

of residence of the wife was at Jaipur, Rajasthan.

In that case, the petitioner is having a small child

and that she pleaded difficulty in going all the

way from Jaipur to Bombay to contest the

proceedings from time to time. Considering the

distance and the difficulties faced by the wife,

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Tr.C.M.P.No.29 of 2021

the Supreme Court has allowed the transfer

petition.

In a decision reported in 2005 (12) SCC

395, the wife has sought for transfer of

matrimonial proceedings and a divorce petition

has been filed by the respondent's husband at

Baikunthpur to be transferred to Allahabad,

where the petitioner's wife was residing, on the

ground that it would be difficult for her to

undertake such long distance journey,

particularly in circumstances, in which she finds

that the proceedings under 5 Section 125 Cr.P.C.

was already pending before the Family Court,

Allahabad. Considering the difficulties faced by

the wife and also the long distance journey, the

Honourable Supreme Court was pleased to order

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Tr.C.M.P.No.29 of 2021

transfer of the proceedings to Allahabad.

(iii) In a decision made in TR.CMP(MD)No.108 of 2010, dated

03.03.2011, the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, has observed as

below:-

''18.It is true that section 19 of the Hindu

Marriage Act, has been amended by insertion of

proviso of (iii)(a) to section 19. Of Course, this

amended section 19(iii)(a) gives special preference

to the wife to file a petition or defending the case of

the husband before the Court within whose

jurisdiction she resides. The intention of the

legislator is to safe-guard the interest and rights of

the women, who are being subjected to harassment

and cruelty. But this special preference conferred

under section 19(iii)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act

shall not be used to wreck vengeance on the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Tr.C.M.P.No.29 of 2021

husband. There must be a justifiable cause to select

the jurisdiction of the Court where she resides.''

5. In view of the facts and circumstances, the M.C.O.P.No.951 of

2020 pending on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,

Cuddalore, stands transferred to the Additional District Court, Hosur,

Krishnagiri District, to be tried along with M.C.O.P.No.303 of 2020.

6. Accordingly, this Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition No.29

of 2021 stands allowed and M.C.O.P.No.951 of 2020 pending on the file

of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Cuddalore, is directed to be

transferred to the Additional District Court, Hosur, Krishnagiri District,

to be tried along with M.C.O.P.No.303 of 2020. No costs. Consequently,

connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

17.02.2021

Pns Index: Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Speaking order/Non speaking order

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Tr.C.M.P.No.29 of 2021

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

Pns

1. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Cuddalore.