Madras High Court
K.Hemavarshini vs D.Devadoss on 15 December, 2022
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
Tr.C.M.P.No.1033 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 15.12.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
Tr.C.M.P.No.1033 of 2022
and
C.M.P.No.17764 of 2022
K.Hemavarshini ... Petitioner/Respondent
Vs.
D.Devadoss ... Respondent/Petitioner
Prayer: Transfer CMP is filed under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code,
to withdraw the HMOP No.141 of 2022 pending on the file of the Learned
Subordinate Court at Katpadi, Vellore District and transfer the same to the
Learned Subordinate Court at Thiruvottiyur, Chennai.
For Petitioner : Mr.J.Jayan for
Mr.S.N.Arunkumar
For Respondent : Mr.M.Sathish Kumar
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Tr.C.M.P.No.1033 of 2022
ORDER
The petition for transfer is filed to withdraw the case in HMOP No.141 of 2022 from the file of the Sub-Ordinate Court at Katpadi, Vellore District and transfer the same to the Sub-Ordinate Court at Thiruvottiyur to try along with M.C.No.127 of 2022.
2.The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnised on 11.02.2019, as per the Hindu Marriage rites and customs. Due to some misunderstandings, the petitioner and the respondent are living separately. The respondent filed HMOP No.141 of 2022 for dissolution of marriage, pending on the file of the Sub-Ordinate Court Katpadi, Vellore District.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the petitioner is unemployed and residing along with her parents thus, she is not in a position to spend, travel, and contest the divorce case filed by the respondent before the Court at Katpadi, Vellore District.
Page 2 of 8https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Tr.C.M.P.No.1033 of 2022
4.The learned counsel for the respondent raised an objection by stating that the respondent/husband is working in BIT Engineering College at Vellore and therefore, he will not be in a position to contest the case if it is transferred to the Court at Thiruvottiyur.
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:-
“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 Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Tr.C.M.P.No.1033 of 2022 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. Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Tr.C.M.P.No.1033 of 2022 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 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 Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Tr.C.M.P.No.1033 of 2022 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 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 Page 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Tr.C.M.P.No.1033 of 2022 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, HMOP No.l41 of 2022, pending on the file of the Sub-Ordinate Court Katpadi, Vellore District, stands transferred to Sub-Ordinate Court Tiruvattiyur, Chennai. The Sub-
Ordinate Court at Katpadi is directed to transfer the case papers to the Sub-
Ordinate Court Tiruvattiyur, Chennai, as expeditiously as possible.
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.
15.12.2022 sha Index : Yes Speaking order Page 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Tr.C.M.P.No.1033 of 2022 S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
sha To
1.The Judge, Sub Court, Katpadi, Vellore District.
2.The Judge, Sub Court, Thiruvottiyur, Chennai.
Tr.C.M.P.No.1033 of 202215.12.2022 Page 8 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis