Madras High CourtV.Sri Suvedha vs N.Manikandan on 8 December, 2022Tr.C.M.P.No.1135 of 2022\n\n                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\n                                                     DATED : 08.12.2022\n\n                                                            CORAM\n\n                              THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM\n\n                                                   Tr.C.M.P.No.1135 of 2022\n                                                             and\n                                                    C.M.P.No.21025 of 2022\n\n                     V.Sri Suvedha                                                 ... Petitioner\n                                                               Vs.\n                     N.Manikandan                                                  ... Respondent\n\n                     Prayer: Transfer CMP is filed under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure\n                     Code, to withdraw the GWOP No.1 of 2022 pending on the file of learned\n                     District Cum Session Court, Nilgiris, Udhagamandalam and transfer the\n                     same to the learned District Court, Salem to try along with GWOP No.11 of\n                     2022.\n                                  For Petitioner          : Ms. M.Lakshmi Priya Muthu Ramalingam\n\n                                  For Respondent          : Mr. P.Harikrishnan\n                                                            For M/s.MCGAN Law Firm\n\n                                                           ORDERThe petition for transfer is filed to withdraw the GWOP No.1 of 2022\n\n                     pending on the file of learned District Cum Session Court, Nilgiris,\n\n                     Udhagamandalam and transfer the same to the learned District Court, Salem\n\n                     to try along with GWOP No.11 of 2022.Page 1 of 10https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis\n                                                                                     Tr.C.M.P.No.1135 of 20222. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was\n\n                     solemnized on 15.11.2013 as per Hindu Rites and Customs. One male child\n\n                     was born from and out of the wedlock between the petitioner and the\n\n                     respondent and now living with the petitioner / mother. Due to some\n\n                     misunderstanding, the petitioner and the respondent are living separately.\n\n                     The petitioner filed GWOP No.11 of 2022 on the file of the District Court,\n\n                     Salem. The petitioner further filed HMOP No.111 of 2021 seeking\n\n                     dissolution of marriage, which is also pending on the file of the Sub Court\n\n                     at Omalur, Salem. The respondent/ husband filed GWOP No.1 of 2022\n\n                     pending on the file of the District cum Session Court, Nilgiris.3. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is\n\n                     now permanently residing with her parents at Omalur, Salem. She is\n\n                     working in Government Department and recently transferred to Chennai.\n\n                     Further, she has to take care of the child with the assistance of her parents\n\n                     and therefore, she has instituted the case at Salem. When the cases were\n\n                     filed, the petitioner was in Salem and recently she was transferred to\n\n                     Chennai, since she is working in the Government Department. However, the\n\n                     parents of the petitioner is residing at Salem. Therefore, the learned counselPage 2 of 10https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis\n                                                                                     Tr.C.M.P.No.1135 of 2022\n\n                     for the petitioner reiterated that the cases are to be tried before the Court at\n\n                     Salem.4. The learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the\n\n                     contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner by stating that the petitioner is\n\n                     now being transferred at Chennai and therefore, the Court at Salem lost its\n\n                     relevance and thus, this transfer petitioner is to be rejected. It is further\n\n                     contended that the family of the petitioner are threatening the respondent/\n\n                     husband and he may not be in a position to contest the case at Salem freely\n\n                     and fairly.5. This Court is of the considered opinion that the three cases are now\n\n                     pending out of which GWOP No.11 of 2022 pending on the file of District\n\n                     Court at Salem and HMOP No.111 of 2021 are pending before the Sub\n\n                     Court at Salem. At the time of filing the above two cases, the petitioner wife\n\n                     was residing at Salem and therefore, she got transferred to Chennai. Since\n\n                     she is working in the Government Department, there is a possibility that\n\n                     again she may seek transfer to Salem or to any nearby place, which cannot\n\n                     be gone into in the present transfer petition.Page 3 of 10https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis\n                                                                                      Tr.C.M.P.No.1135 of 20226. Even otherwise, it is admitted that the respondent/ husband is\n\n                     residing at Nilgiris District. The distance between the Nilgiris and Chennai\n\n                     is far away and contrarily, the distance between the Salem and Nilgiris is\n\n                     lesser than that of the distance to Chennai. Regarding any threat or\n\n                     otherwise, if any and untold incidents happened, it is for the respondent to\n\n                     take appropriate action in the manner known to law. The parties are\n\n                     expected to conduct the cases in a peaceful manner and by respecting each\n\n                     other and they are not expected to indulge in any illegal or other activity.7. The principles regarding transfer petitions, more specifically in the\n\n                     matters of matrimonial cases, are well settled through the three decisions of\n\n                     the High Court of Madras, in the following cases:-(i) The Hon'ble Division Bench of the High Court of Madras in\n\n                     W.A.No.1181 of 2009, dated 09.07.2010, wherein in paragraphs-21 and 22,\n\n                     it has been observed as under:-“21. The domicile or citizenship of the\n                                      opposite party is immaterial in a case like this. In\n                                      case the marriage was solemnized under HinduPage 4 of 10https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis\n                                                                                  Tr.C.M.P.No.1135 of 2022\n\n                                    Law marital relationship is governed by the\n                                    provisions of theHindu Marriage Act. Therefore,Section 19has to be given a purposeful\n                                    interpretation. It is the residence of the wife,\n                                    which determines the question of jurisdiction, in\n                                    case the proceeding was initiated at the instance\n                                    of the wife.22. While considering a provision likeSection 19(iii-a) of theHindu Marriage Act, the\n                                    objects   and   reasons   which    prompted    the\n                                    parliament to incorporate such a provision has\n                                    also to be taken note of. Sub Clause (iii-a) was\n                                    inserted inSection 19with a specific purpose.\n                                    Experience is the best teacher. The Government\n                                    found the difficulties faced by women in the matter\n                                    of initiation of matrimonial proceedings. The\n                                    report submitted by the Law Commission as well\n                                    as National Commission for Women, underlying\n                                    the need for such amendment so as to enable the\n                                    women to approach the nearest jurisdictional\n                                    court to redress their matrimonial grievances,\n                                    were also taken note of by the Government.Therefore such a beneficial provision meant for\n                                    the women of our Country should be given a\n                                    meaningful interpretation by Courts.”Page 5 of 10https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis\n                                                                                   Tr.C.M.P.No.1135 of 2022(ii) In yet another case in Tr.CMP.Nos.138 and 139 of 2006, dated\n\n                     30.08.2006, the High Court of Madras has considered the following\n\n                     judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India:-“(1) In the case ofMona Aresh Goel vs.\n                                     Aresh Satya Goel[(2000) 9 SCC 255], when the\n                                     wife pleaded that she was unable to bear the\n                                     traveling expenses and even to travel alone and stay\n                                     at Bombay, the Supreme Court ordered transfer of\n                                     proceedings.(2) In the case of Geeta Heera vs. Harish\n                                     Chander Heera [(2000) 10 SCC 304], the Hon'ble\n                                     Supreme Court has held that where the petitioner's\n                                     wife has pleaded lack of money, the same has to be\n                                     considered.(3) In the case ofLalita A.Ranga vs. Ajay\n                                     Champalal Ranga[(2000) 9 SCC 355], the wife\n                                     has filed a petition to transfer the proceedings\n                                     initiated by the husband for divorce, at Bombay.The place of residence of the wife was at Jaipur,\n                                     Rajasthan. In that case, the petitioner is having a\n                                     small child and that she pleaded difficulty in going\n                                     all the way from Jaipur to Bombay to contest the\n                                     proceedings from time to time. Considering thePage 6 of 10https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis\n                                                                                    Tr.C.M.P.No.1135 of 2022\n\n                                     distance and the difficulties faced by the wife, the\n                                     Supreme Court has allowed the transfer petition.(4) In a decision in Archana Singh vs.\n                                     Surendra Bahadur Singh [(2005) 12 SCC 395], the\n                                     wife has sought for transfer of matrimonial\n                                     proceedings and a divorce petition has been filed by\n                                     the respondent's husband at Baikunthpur to be\n                                     transferred to Allahabad, where the petitioner's wife\n                                     was residing, on the ground that it would be\n                                     difficult for her to undertake such long distance\n                                     journey, particularly in circumstances, in which she\n                                     finds that the proceedings underSection 125Cr.P.C. was already pending before the Family\n                                     Court, Allahabad. Considering the difficulties faced\n                                     by the wife and also the long distance journey, the\n                                     Honourable Supreme Court was pleased to order\n                                     transfer of the proceedings to Allahabad.”(iii) In a decision made in TR.CMP(MD)No.108 of 2010, dated\n\n                     03.03.2011, the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, wherein in\n\n                     paragraph-18, it has been observed as below:-“18. It is true thatsection 19of the Hindu\n                                     Marriage Act, has been amended by insertion of\n                                     proviso of (iii)(a) tosection 19. Of Course, thisPage 7 of 10https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis\n                                                                                      Tr.C.M.P.No.1135 of 2022\n\n                                     amendedsection 19(iii)(a)gives special preference\n                                     to the wife to file a petition or defending the case of\n                                     the husband before the Court within whose\n                                     jurisdiction she resides. The intention of the\n                                     Legislator is to safe-guard the interest and rights\n                                     of the women, who are being subjected to\n                                     harassment and cruelty. But this special preference\n                                     conferred undersection 19(iii)(a)of the Hindu\n                                     Marriage Act shall not be used to wreck vengeance\n                                     on the husband. There must be a justifiable cause\n                                     to select the jurisdiction of the Court where she\n                                     resides.”8. Considering the facts and circumstances, GWOP No.1 of 2022\n\n                     pending on the file of the District cum Session Court, Nilgiris,\n\n                     Udhagamandalam stands transferred to the District Court, Salem. The\n\n                     District cum Session Court, Nilgiris, Udhagamandalam is directed to\n\n                     transmit all the case papers to the District Court, Salem, to be tried along\n\n                     with GWOP No. 11 of 2022 within a period of four (4) weeks from the date\n\n                     of receipt of a copy of this order.Page 8 of 10https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis\n                                                                                 Tr.C.M.P.No.1135 of 20229. With the abovesaid directions, the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous\n\n                     Petition stands allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.\n\n                     Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.08.12.2022\n                     Skr/Jeni\n                     Index : Yes\n                     Speaking order\n\n                     To1.The Judge,\n                       District cum Session Court,\n                       Nilgiris,\n                       Udhagamandalam.2.The Judge,\n                       District Court,\n                       Salem.Page 9 of 10https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis\n                                             Tr.C.M.P.No.1135 of 2022\n\n\n\n                                     S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.Skr\n\n\n\n\n                                      Tr.C.M.P.No.1135 of 2022\n\n\n\n\n                                                       08.12.2022Page 10 of 10https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis