Madras High Court

Umamaheswari vs Chandrasekaran on 25 January, 2023

                                                                                     Tr.C.M.P.No.1242 of 2022

                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                         DATED : 25.01.2023

                                                                CORAM

                              THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

                                                    Tr.C.M.P.No.1242 of 2022
                                                              and
                                                     C.M.P.No.21077 of 2022

                     Umamaheswari                                              ..    Petitioner
                                                                 vs
                     Chandrasekaran                                     ..    Respondents
                     Prayer: Transfer CMP is filed under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code,

                     to withdraw the H.M.O.P.No.99 of 2022 pending on the file of the Hon'ble

                     Family Court, Thiruvarur at Mannargudi and transfer the same to Family

                     Court, Cuddalore.


                                        For Petitioner      :     Mr.S.Varun

                                        For Respondents :         Mrs.P.T.Ramadevi


                                                                ORDER

The transfer petition is filed to withdraw the H.M.O.P.No.99 of 2022

pending on the file of the Family Court, Thiruvarur at Mannargudi and

transfer the same to the Family Court, Cuddalore.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Tr.C.M.P.No.1242 of 2022

2. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was

solemnized on 03.06.1993 as per the Hindu Rites and Customs. Due to

misunderstanding, the petitioner and the respondent are living separately.

The respondent filed H.M.O.P.No.99 of 2022 on the file of the Family

Court, Thiruvarur at Mannargudi for dissolution of marriage.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is not

gainfully employed, therefore, the petitioner may not be in a position to

spend, travel or contest the case.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent raised an objection by stating

that the respondent is also an aged person and not in a position to travel and

contest the case. The ground raised is insufficient to reject the transfer

application filed by the petitioner wife, who is also equally aged.

5. The principles regarding transfer petitions, more specifically in the

matters of matrimonial cases, are well settled through the three decisions of

the High Court of Madras, in the following cases:-

(i) The Hon'ble Division Bench of the High Court

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Tr.C.M.P.No.1242 of 2022

of Madras in W.A.No.1181 of 2009, dated 09.07.2010,

wherein in paragraphs-21 and 22, it has been observed as

under:-

“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 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.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Tr.C.M.P.No.1242 of 2022

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 of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India:-

“(1) In the case of Mona Aresh Goel vs. Aresh Satya Goel [(2000) 9 SCC 255], 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.

(2) In the case of Geeta Heera vs. Harish Chander Heera [(2000) 10 SCC 304], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that where the petitioner's wife has pleaded lack of money, the same has to be considered.

(3) In the case of Lalita A.Ranga vs. Ajay Champalal Ranga [(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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Tr.C.M.P.No.1242 of 2022

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.

(4) In a decision in Archana Singh vs. Surendra Bahadur Singh [(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, wherein in

paragraph-18, it has been 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Tr.C.M.P.No.1242 of 2022

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.”

6. Considering the facts and circumstances, the H.M.O.P.No.99 of

2022 pending on the file of the Family Court, Thiruvarur at Mannargudi

stands transferred to the Family Court, Cuddalore.

7. The Family Court, Thiruvarur at Mannargudi is directed to transmit

the case papers within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a

copy of this order.

8. With these directions, this transfer petition stands allowed.

Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There will be

no order as to costs.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Tr.C.M.P.No.1242 of 2022

Index : Yes / No 25.01.2023 Speaking order / Non-speaking order Neutral Citation:Yes/No drm

1. The Family Court, Thiruvarur at Mannargudi.

2. The Family Court, Cuddalore.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Tr.C.M.P.No.1242 of 2022

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.