Madras High Court

R.Priavadhana vs N.Murugapandi on 26 February, 2021

                                                                              Tr.CMP No.59 of 2021

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                    DATED : 26.02.2021

                                                         CORAM

                              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

                                                 Tr.C.M.P.No.59 of 2021
                                                          and
                                                 C.M.P.No.2150 of 2021

                     R.Priavadhana                                                    .. Petitioner

                                                            vs.

                     N.Murugapandi                                                   .. Respondent

                     PRAYER : Transfer CMP is filed under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure
                     Code, to withdraw the case in H.M.O.P.No.397 of 2020 on the file of
                     Hon'ble Court of Learned Sub-Judge, Poonamallee and transfer the same to
                     the file of any one of the Learned Court of Family Judge, Puducherry.
                                   For Petitioner           : Mr.S.Murugavel
                                   For Respondent           : M/s.R.Janani

                                                         ORDER

The petition for transfer is filed to transfer H.M.O.P.No.397 of

2020 from the Sub Court, Poonamallee to the Family Court, Puducherry.

2. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Tr.CMP No.59 of 2021

solemnized on 22.08.2010 as per the Hindu Rites and Customs. The

petitioner and the respondent were living happily in the Matrimonial home

for about 10 years. A male baby born recently from and out of the wedlock

and now 8 months old. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the

petitioner along with her child, now residing in her parents house at

Puducherry and therefore, she is not in a position to travel all along from

Puducherry to Poonamallee and contest the Divorce petition filed by the

respondent in H.M.O.P.No.397 of 2020. It is further contended that the

petitioner has to take care of the 8 months old baby and it would be very

difficult for her to travel at this point of time and defend the case.

3. The learned counsel for the respondent/husband states that the

petitioner is having her own house at Chennai. Therefore, she is in a

position to attend the Court at Poonamallee. Even as per the submission, the

own house situates at Valasaravakkam, Chennai and the case is now filed

before the Sub Court, Poonamallee. However, owning a house alone is not

the criteria for the purpose of considering the transfer case.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Tr.CMP No.59 of 2021

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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Tr.CMP No.59 of 2021

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:-

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Tr.CMP No.59 of 2021

''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, 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Tr.CMP No.59 of 2021

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

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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Tr.CMP No.59 of 2021

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

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 H.M.O.P.No.397 of

2020 pending on the file of the Sub Court, Poonamallee stands transferred

to the Family Court, Puducherry.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Tr.CMP No.59 of 2021

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

Kak

6. Accordingly, this Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition No.59

of 2021 stands allowed and H.M.O.P.No.397 of 2020 pending on the file of

the Sub Court, Poonamallee, is directed to be transferred to the Family

Court, Puducherry. The Family Court, Puducherry, is requested to dispose

of the case as expeditiously as possible. However, there shall be no order as

to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

26.02.2021 Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order. Internet : Yes/No.

Index: Yes/No.

Kak To