Madras High Court
Saranya vs Karthick on 6 January, 2021
Tr.CMP No.511 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.01.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
Tr.C.M.P.No.511 of 2020
Saranya .. Petitioner
vs.
Karthick .. Respondent
PRAYER : Transfer CMP is filed under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure
Code to withdraw H.M.O.P.No.118/2020 pending on the file of Family
Court, Karur and transfer the same to Family Court at Tiruvannamalai.
For Petitioner : Mr.B.Jawahar
For Respondent : Mr.S.Anburaja
ORDER
The petition for transfer is filed to transfer H.M.O.P.No.118 of
2020 from Family Court, Karur to Family Court, Tiruvannamalai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Tr.CMP No.511 of 2020
2. Mr.S.Anburaja, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently
contended that the transfer petition is devoid of merits.
3. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was
solemnized as per Hindu Rites and Customs on 10.04.2017 at
Tiruvannamalai. A female child was born from and out of their wedlock and
the child is now aged about two years. The petitioner states that she lost her
father during her tender age and now living along with her mother, who is
also aged person. Due to the harassment of the respondent, she was forced
to leave the Matrimonial home along with her two year old child. She was
admitted in Government Hospital due to the continuous harassment of the
respondent. The respondent has not shown any love and affection even
towards the child and left the Matrimonial home without any valid reason.
The respondent filed H.M.O.P.No.118 of 2020 for Divorce before the
Family Court, Karur. The petitioner is having a child, aged about two years
and she is living along with her widow mother at Tirupur. Thus, she is not
in a position to transfer and defend the transfer petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Tr.CMP No.511 of 2020
4. The learned counsel for the respondent made a submission that
the petitioner left the home at her own and not the volition of the
respondent. However, all the allegations are to be adjudicated in the
H.M.O.P. filed by the respondent. Contrarily, this Court cannot made any
finding in respect of the issues on merits. However, the fact remains that the
petitioner is residing in her mother's home along with her two year old child.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Tr.CMP No.511 of 2020
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Tr.CMP No.511 of 2020
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Tr.CMP No.511 of 2020
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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Tr.CMP No.511 of 2020
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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Tr.CMP No.511 of 2020
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.118 of
2020 now pending on the file of the Family Court, Karur to the Family
Court, Tiruvanamalai.
7. Accordingly, this Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition
No.511 of 2020 stands allowed and H.M.O.P.No.118 of 2020 pending on
the file of the Family Court, Karur is directed to be transferred to the Family
Court, Tiruvannamalai. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
06.01.2021
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order.
Internet : Yes/No.
Index: Yes/No.
Kak
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Tr.CMP No.511 of 2020
To
1.The Judge,
Family Court,
Karur.
2.The Judge,
Family Court,
Tiruvannamalai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Tr.CMP No.511 of 2020
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Kak
Tr.CMP No.511 of 2020
06.01.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
