Madras High Court
Meenakshi vs Rengaraj on 23 January, 2023
Tr.C.M.P.No.955 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 23.01.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
Tr.C.M.P.No.955 of 2022
and
C.M.P.No.16423 of 2022
Meenakshi .. Petitioner
vs
Rengaraj .. Respondent
Prayer: Transfer CMP is filed under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code,
to withdraw the H.M.O.P.No.81 of 2022, pending on the file of the Principal
Sub Court, Mayiladuthurai and transfer the same to the Family Court at
Chennai.
For Petitioner : Mrs.B.Yogapriya
For Respondent : Mr.A.Mohamed Ismail
ORDER
The transfer petition is filed to withdraw the H.M.O.P.No.81 of 2022,
pending on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Mayiladuthurai and transfer
the same to the Family Court at Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Tr.C.M.P.No.955 of 2022
2. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was
solemnized on 10.06.1984 as per the Hindu Rites and Customs. Two
children were born from and out of the wedlock between the petitioner and
the respondent and they are now aged about 35 and 28 years old
respectively. Both the children got married and are living separately.
3. At old age, difference arose between the petitioner and the
respondent and now they are living separately. The respondent / husband
filed H.M.O.P.No.81 of 2022 for dissolution of marriage, now pending on
the file of the Principal Sub-Court Mayiladuthurai.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is
employed and in the verge of retirement. Therefore, she is not in a position
to travel and contest the case filed by the respondent. More so, the place of
the wife is preferable for adjudication of matrimonial disputes.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent raised an objection to transfer
the case by stating that the petitioner is employed and is capable to travel
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Tr.C.M.P.No.955 of 2022
and contest the case at Mayiladuthurai or at Tambaram. Learned counsel for
the respondent made a submission that the case may be transferred to
Tambaram, enabling the respondent to contest the case. However,
transferring the case to a place where there is not even a cause of action or
either of the parties are residing, this Court is not inclined to consider the
said contention of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.
6. 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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Tr.C.M.P.No.955 of 2022
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. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Tr.C.M.P.No.955 of 2022
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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Tr.C.M.P.No.955 of 2022
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Tr.C.M.P.No.955 of 2022
cause to select the jurisdiction of the Court where she
resides.”
7. Considering the facts and circumstances, the H.M.O.P.No.81 of
2022, pending on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Mayiladuthurai stands
transferred to the Family Court, Chennai.
8. The Principal Sub Court, Mayiladuthurai is directed to transmit the
case papers within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy
of this order.
9. With these directions, this transfer petition stands allowed.
Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There will be
no order as to costs.
23.01.2023
drm
Index : Yes / No
Speaking order / Non-speaking order
To
1. The Principal Sub Court, Mayiladuthurai.
2. The Family Court, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Tr.C.M.P.No.955 of 2022
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
(drm)
Tr.C.M.P.No.955 of 2022
and
C.M.P.No.16423 of 2022
23.01.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
