Madras High Court
S.Kasturi vs A.Ramachandran on 18 October, 2024
Tr.C.M.P(MD)No.422 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 08.08.2024
Pronounced on : 18.10.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VADAMALAI
Tr.C.M.P(MD)No.422 of 2024
and
C.M.P(MD)No.9231 of 2024
S.Kasturi ... Petitioner
Vs.
A.Ramachandran ... Respondent
PRAYER : Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Section 24 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, to withdraw the H.M.O.P.No.251 of 2024
pending on the file of the Family Court, Puducherry and to transfer the same
to the file of the Subordinate Court, Thuraiyur for disposal on merits along
with H.M.O.P.No.31 of 2024.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Anaimuthuraja
For Respondent : Mr.G.Rajan
1/13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Tr.C.M.P(MD)No.422 of 2024
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to withdraw
H.M.O.P.No.251 of 2024 pending on the file of the Family Court,
Puducherry and to transfer the same to the file of the Subordinate Court,
Thuraiyur for disposal along with H.M.O.P.No.31 of 2024.
2.Case of the petitioner/wife in brief:-
The petitioner is the wife of the respondent and their marriage was
solemnized on 07.09.2022, as per Hindu Rites and Customs at Puducherry.
Out of wedlock, a male child A.Arunagirinathan was born to them on
16.06.2023. At the time of marriage, the respondent, being MCA graduate
was working at HP Company in Chennai. The respondent did not take any
care of the petitioner and the child. He left them in the petitioner’s parental
home and neglected them in all means. All efforts taken by the petitioner
went in vain. The respondent filed H.M.O.P.No.251 of 2024 on the file of
the Family Court, Puducherry against the petitioner seeking divorce. The
petitioner filed H.M.O.P.No.31 of 2024 on the file of the Subordinate Court,
Thuraiyur for restitution of conjugal rights against the respondent and also
filed M.C.No.15 of 2024 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Thuraiyur, seeking maintenance from the respondent. The petitioner is now
residing along with her parents at Thuraiyur, Thirucirappalli District. Hence,
the petitioner filed this present petition seeking transfer.
3.Case of the respondent/husband in brief:-
The respondent objected the petition and contended that the
petitioner often left to her parent’s house and was continuously staying at
Thuraiyur. She finally left the matrimonial home on 14.10.2022 and she did
not return back. The petitioner already married one Vigneshwaran of
Pudukottai and gave several tortures to him and then got a mutual divorce in
H.M.O.P.No.55 of 2020 on 02.12.2021. Thereafter, the petitioner married
the respondent and started giving torture and so many displeasures which
caused the respondent to file H.M.O.P.No.251 of 2024 before the Family
Court, Puducherry for divorce. The respondent was suffering from heart
disease and a stent was placed in a part of his heart. Moreover, the
respondent’s mother is suffering from breast cancer and he is taking care of
his mother. The petitioner is a brave lady and qualified with M.Sc., M.Phil.,
and B.Ed., and she can attend the Court without any difficulty. If the transfer
is granted, the respondent will suffer irreparable loss and hardship.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is
a female, who is looking after her one year old child. The petitioner is now
jobless and she is also depending on her parents at Thuraiyur. She finds it
difficult to travel to Puducherry. The respondent has also to attend the
Courts at Thuraiayur, where the petitioner has filed H.M.O.P.No.31 of 2024
for restitution of conjugal rights and M.C.No.15 of 2024 for maintenance.
Therefore, the respondent will not be prejudiced if the H.M.O.P.No.251 of
2024 is transferred from the Family Court, Puducherry to the Subordinate
Court, Thuraiyur.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that at
the instance of her parents, the petitioner deserted the respondent and she is
giving harassment to the respondent by filing cases. In addition to filing of
H.M.O.P.No.31 of 2024 and M.C.No.15 of 2024, the petitioner lodged a
dowry complaint against the respondent and his family members. The
respondent being a heart patient with a stent fixed, his travel to long distance
is risky. Moreover, the mother of the respondent is a cancer patient and he
has to look after his mother. The petitioner’s father is a money lender and is
having sufficient means to maintain the petitioner. In a similar case, this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Court previously dismissed the transfer petition and produced the copy of the
order passed by this Court in Tr.C.M.P(MD)No.39 of 2022, dated
22.03.2022. Moreover, the respondent is willing to pay the cost to the
petitioner for travel and hence, the petition may be dismissed.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner in reply submitted that the
petitioner is maintaining one year old child and the petitioner and the child
are under the care and custody of the petitioner's parents. The respondent
admitted that the petitioner is now residing at Thuraiyur in her parental
house. Hence, travel to Puducherry from Thuraiyur is not possible and this
petition may be allowed.
7. On hearing both sides and on perusal of records, it is clear that the
marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on
07.09.2022 at Puducherry and out of wedlock they have a male child,
R.Arunagirinathan and that now both are residing separately. The respondent
has filed H.M.O.P.No.251 of 2024 before the Family Court, Puducherry for
divorce. The petitioner has filed H.M.O.P.No.31 of 2024 for restitution of
conjugal rights and also filed M.C.No.15 of 2024 for maintenance and the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
said cases are pending before the concerned Courts at Thuraiyur. That being
the position, both parties are bound to appear before the Courts at
Puducherry and Thuraiyur. Now, the petitioner/wife has filed this present
petition for transfer of H.M.O.P.No.251 of 2024 from the Family Court,
Puducherry to Thuraiyur Subordinate Court.
8. The proposition of law regarding transfer petitions, more
specifically in the matters of matrimonial cases, is well settled by this Court
and also by the Hon’ble Supreme Court 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 paragraph Nos.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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.C.M.P(MD)Nos.138 and 139 of 2006,
dated 30.08.2006, this Court 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.
9. Even in recent years, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated the
difficulties faced by the wife while attending the divorce petition filed by the
husband and transfer the divorce petition where the wife ordinarily resides.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed and held in paragraph Nos.9 to 12
in its order, dated 08.07.2022 passed in CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 4894 of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2022 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C)No(s).16465 of 2021), which is filed against
the rejection of Tr.C.M.P(MD)No.473 of 2020 of this Court as follows:
“9. The cardinal principle for exercise of
power under Section 24 of the Code of Civil
Procedure is that the ends of justice should
demand the transfer of the suit, appeal or other
proceeding. In matrimonial matters, wherever
Courts are called upon to consider the plea of
transfer, the Courts have to take into
consideration the economic soundness of both
the parties, the social strata of the spouses and
their behavioural pattern, their standard of life
prior to the marriage and subsequent thereto
and the circumstances of both the parties in
eking out their livelihood and under whose
protective umbrella they are seeking their
sustenance to life. Given the prevailing
socioeconomic paradigm in the Indian society,
generally, it is the wife’s convenience which must
be looked at while considering transfer.
10. Further, when two or more
proceedings are pending in different Courts
between the same parties which raise common
question of fact and law, and when the decisions
in the cases are interdependent, it is desirable
that they should be tried together by the same
Judge so as to avoid multiplicity in trial of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
same issues and conflict of decisions.
11. As noticed above, the appellant is a
young lady aged about 21 years, staying alone
along with her aged parents. Under the above
circumstances, it is difficult for her to travel all
the way from Chennai to Vellore to attend the
court proceedings of the case filed by the
respondent seeking annulment of marriage.
Further, it is also just and proper to club all the
three cases together to avoid multiplicity of the
proceedings and conflict of decisions. Therefore,
the High Court was not justified in rejecting
transfer petition bearing TR.C.M.P.No.473 of
2020, filed by the appellant herein.
12. Resultantly, the appeal succeeds and
is accordingly allowed. The Order dated
19.11.2020 passed by the High Court in
TR.C.M.P. NO.473 of 2020 is set aside. We direct
transfer of F.C.O.P. No.125 of 2020 pending
consideration before the Family Court, Vellore to
the jurisdictional Family Court at Chennai.
10. In the case on hand, both parties are residing at different places.
The petitioner/wife is residing at Thuraiyur along with her parents with her
one year old child. The respondent/husband is residing in Puducherry. Both
parties have filed the petitions separately for divorce, restitution of conjugal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
rights and maintenance. As already stated supra, both parties are bound to
attend the respective Courts. As discussed supra, the settled position and
amendment to the provision of the Hindu Marriage Act and the report
submitted by the Law Commission as well as the 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. Therefore, such a beneficial provision meant for the women of
our Country should be given a meaningful interpretation by the Courts.
While considering the previous order of this Court relied on by the
respondent, wherein the wife frequently visited the hometown of her
husband for filing complaints and on that ground the transfer sought by the
wife was negatived. But the facts and circumstances of this case are
different. So, the order produced by the respondent/husband is not applicable
to this case. Therefore, this Court is inclined to allow this petition.
11. In the result, this Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed.
The petition in H.M.O.P.No.251 of 2024 pending on the file of the Family
Court, Puducherry stands transferred to the file of the Subordinate Court,
Thuraiyur to try along with H.M.O.P.No.31 of 2024. The learned Sub Judge,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Thuraiyur is directed to dispose of both the petitions within a period of five
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, the
connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
18.10.2024
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
VSD
To
1.The Family Court,
Puducherry.
2.The Subordinate Court,
Thuraiyur.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
P.VADAMALAI, J.
VSD
Pre - Delivery Order made in
and
18.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
