Madras High Court

R.P.Nandhini vs R.Ranganathan on 7 January, 2021

                                                                                Tr.CMP No.503 of 2020

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                      DATED : 07.01.2021

                                                           CORAM

                              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

                                                    Tr.C.M.P.No.503 of 2020
                                                             and
                                                    C.M.P.No.12763 of 2020

                     R.P.Nandhini                                                        .. Petitioner

                                                              vs.

                     R.Ranganathan                                                     .. Respondent

                     PRAYER : Transfer CMP is filed under Section 24(1) of the Civil
                     Procedure Code to withdraw the petition in H.M.O.P.No.303 of 2020 on the
                     file of the learned V Additional Principal Judge, Chennai to be transferred
                     to the learned Principal Sub-ordinate Judge, Cheyyar.

                                   For Petitioner             : No-appearance

                                   For Respondent             : No Appearance




                     1/10


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                                               Tr.CMP No.503 of 2020



                                                        ORDER

The petition for transfer is filed to transfer H.M.O.P.No.303 of

2020 from V Additional Principal Judge, Chennai to the Principal Sub-

ordinate Judge, Cheyyar.

2. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was

solemnized on 23.03.2008 as per Hindu Rites and Customs. The

matrimonial house was set up at the respondent's residence at Vandavasi.

However, the matrimonial life between the petitioner and the respondent

was not harmonious. The petitioner states that the respondent never treated

her as his wife.

3.Various allegations are raised in the petition and the said

allegations are to be adjudicated before the concerned Court. From and out

of the wedlock between the petitioner and the respondent, a male child was

born on 26.07.2012 at Kancheepuram and another male child was born on

08.07.2015. The family members of the respondent stopped providing food

to the petitioner. On account of continuous harassment, she was forced to

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Tr.CMP No.503 of 2020

leave the matrimonial home. The petitioner filed a maintenance case in

M.C.No.4 of 2019 under Section 125 (1A)(a)(b) of Cr.P.C and a Domestic

Violance case in D.V.C.No.8 of 2019 under Sections 18, 19, 20, 22, 23 (2)

of Domestic Violance Act, 2005. This apart, the petitioner filed a petition

for restitution of conjugal rights before the Sub-Court, Cheyyar. Thereafter,

the respondent filed a petition for divorce in H.M.O.P.No.303 of 2020

before the V Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai. Due to the

family circumstances and the petitioner has taken care of her two children,

the petitioner is unable to contest the case at Chennai. The parents of the

petitioner are aged and they are financially weak. Therefore, she is not in a

position to travel to Chennai and contest the divorce case filed by the

respondent.

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:-

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Tr.CMP No.503 of 2020

''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

in Section 19 with a specific purpose. Experience

is the best teacher. The Government found the

difficulties faced by women in the matter of

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Tr.CMP No.503 of 2020

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

expenses and even to travel alone and stay at

Bombay, the Supreme Court ordered transfer of

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Tr.CMP No.503 of 2020

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

proceedings and a divorce petition has been filed by

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Tr.CMP No.503 of 2020

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.503 of 2020

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.303 of

2020 pending on the file of the learned V Additional Principal Judge,

Chennai stands transferred to the learned Principal Sub-ordinate Judge,

Cheyyar.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Tr.CMP No.503 of 2020

6. Accordingly, this Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition

No.503 of 2020 stands allowed and H.M.O.P.No.303 of 2020 pending on

the file of the learned V Additional Principal Judge, Chennai is directed to

be transferred to the learned Principal Sub-ordinate Judge, Cheyyar.

However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected

miscellaneous petition is closed.

07.01.2021 Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order. Internet : Yes/No.

Index: Yes/No.

Ssb

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Tr.CMP No.503 of 2020

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.