Madras High Court
Mrs.S.Sandhiya @ Gunapandiselvi vs Mr.M.Senthil Kumar on 24 January, 2023
Tr.C.M.P.No.1194 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 24.01.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
Tr.C.M.P.No.1194 of 2022
and
C.M.P.No.20487 of 2022
Mrs.S.Sandhiya @ Gunapandiselvi ... Petitioner
Vs.
Mr.M.Senthil Kumar ... Respondent
Prayer: Transfer CMP is filed under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure
Code, to pass an order to withdraw the H.M.O.P.No.118 of 2021 pending
on the file of the Hon'ble Subordinate Court at Melur, Madurai and Transfer
the same to the Hon'ble Subordinate Court at Alandur, Chennai.
For Petitioner : Mrs.P.Mariyammal
For Respondent : Left
Page 1 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Tr.C.M.P.No.1194 of 2022
ORDER
The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was
solemnised on 09.02.2017 as per Hindu rites and customs. Due to some
misunderstanding, the petitioner and the respondent are living separately.
The respondent/husband filed HMOP No.118 of 2021 for dissolution of
marriage, now pending on the file of the Sub-court at Melur, Madurai
District.
2.Notice was issued to the respondents and the same was returned
with an endorsement “left”. As far as the private notice sent by the petitioner
is concerned, it was returned with an endorsement “No such address”.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner states that even in the HMOP
proceedings filed by the respondent/husband, the very same address that is
“No.2/1-D, Gadhi Nagar 1st Street, Near Panchayat Union Office, Melur,
Madurai District”, is mentioned. Notices are served to the same address and
therefore, the respondent is intentionally avoiding receipt of the notice.
When the respondent has filed HMOP No.118 of 2021 for dissolution of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Tr.C.M.P.No.1194 of 2022
marriage by clearly mentioning his address and when the notice was issued
by the Court as well as privately by the petitioner to the same address, the
respondents returned the covers by making certain endorsements which is
unacceptable.
4.The learned counsel for the petitioner says that the petitioner/wife is
unemployed and taking care of her five-year-old female child. She is residing
along with her parents at Nanganalur, Chennai, and thus, is not in a position
to spend, travel and contest the divorce case filed by the respondent in
Madurai District.
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 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:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Tr.C.M.P.No.1194 of 2022
“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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Tr.C.M.P.No.1194 of 2022
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 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,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Tr.C.M.P.No.1194 of 2022
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Tr.C.M.P.No.1194 of 2022
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 cause to select the
jurisdiction of the Court where she resides.”
6. Considering the facts and circumstances, the HMOP No.118 of
2021, pending on the file of the Subordinate Court at Melur, Madurai stands
transferred to the Subordinate Court at Alandur, Chennai. The Subordinate
Court at Melur, Madurai is directed to transmit the case papers to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Tr.C.M.P.No.1194 of 2022
Subordinate Court at Alandur, Chennai within a period of four (4) weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
7. With the abovesaid directions, the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous
Petition stands allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
sha
24.01.2023
Index : Yes
Speaking order
To
1. Subordinate Court at Melur, Madurai.
2. Subordinate Court at Alandur, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Tr.C.M.P.No.1194 of 2022
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
sha
Tr.C.M.P.No.1194 of 2022
24.01.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
