J.Geetha vs M.Vignesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 4364 Mad

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 4364 Mad
Judgement Date : 19 February, 2021

Madras High Court

J.Geetha vs M.Vignesh on 19 February, 2021

                                                                               Tr.CMP No.13 of 2021

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                    DATED : 19.02.2021

                                                         CORAM

                              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

                                                Tr.C.M.P.No.13 of 2021
                                                         and
                                              C.M.P.Nos.511 & 514 of 2021

                     J.Geetha                                                       .. Petitioner

                                                            vs.

                     M.Vignesh                                                     .. Respondent

                     PRAYER : Transfer CMP is filed under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure
                     Code to withdraw the H.M.O.P.No.199 of 2020 pending on the file of the
                     Honourable Sub Judge, Kovilpatti and transfer the same to any other
                     competent Court in Chennai.
                                   For Petitioner         : M/s.V.Bhavani
                                   For Respondent           : Notice Sent - Left

                                                         ORDER

The petition for transfer is filed to transfer H.M.O.P.No.199 of

2020 from Sub Court, Kovilpatti to any other competent Court in Chennai.

2. The marriage and the respondent was solemnized on

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Tr.CMP No.13 of 2021

08.03.2019 as per the Hindu Rites and Customs. The petitioner and the

respondent started their Matrimonial home happily. On account of

misunderstanding between the spouses, the petitioner states that she was

forced to leave the Matrimonial home.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that during the

COVID-19 period, the respondent asked the petitioner to reside in her

parents house and thereafter, he had not returned back nor taken back the

petitioner to Matrimonial home. Shockingly, the respondent/husband filed

H.M.O.P.No.199 of 2020, seeking Dissolution of Marriage. The learned

counsel for the petitioner states that the after doing all these mischief, the

respondent/husband had gone to abroad.

4. However, the petitioner/wife filed a petition in H.M.O.P.No.738

of 2020 before the Sub Court, Poonamallee for Dissolution of Marriage.

Under these circumstances, the petitioner is not in a position to effectively

defend the divorce petition filed by the respondent before the Sub-Court at

Kovilpatti.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Tr.CMP No.13 of 2021

5. 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Tr.CMP No.13 of 2021

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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Tr.CMP No.13 of 2021

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, 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Tr.CMP No.13 of 2021

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 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Tr.CMP No.13 of 2021

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

husband. There must be a justifiable cause to select the

jurisdiction of the Court where she resides.''

6. In view of the facts and circumstances, the H.M.O.P.No.199 of

of 2020 pending on the file of the Sub Court, Kovilpatti, Thoothukudi

District stands transferred to the Family Court, Chennai and

H.M.O.P.No.738 of 2020 filed by the petitioner/wife for Dissolution of

Marriage also stands transferred to the Family Court, Chennai and both the

cases are to be tried together.