Allowed

J.Geetha v. M.Vignesh

Madras HC19 Feb 2021TR CMP/13/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a transfer petition under Section 24 CPC, moving a divorce case from the Sub Court at Kovilpatti to the Family Court at Chennai. This was due to the wife's inability to travel from her residence in Chennai due to financial hardship and difficulties contesting the suit. An existing divorce petition filed by the wife was also transferred and consolidated with the husband's suit.

What did the court decide?

Transfer of H.M.O.P.No.199 of 2020 and H.M.O.P.No.738 of 2020 to the Family Court, Chennai; trials to be filed together; no order as to costs.

J.Geetha Vs M.Vignesh — Matrimonial and Divorce | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 19.02.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶5

Tr.C.M.P.No.13 of 2021 and C.M.P.Nos.511 & 514 of 2021 J.Geetha .. Petitioner vs. M.Vignesh .. Respondent PRAYER : Transfer CMP is filed under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code to withdraw the H.M.O.P.No.199 of 2020 pending on the file of the Honourable Sub Judge, Kovilpatti and transfer the same to any other competent Court in Chennai. For Petitioner : M/s.V.Bhavani For Respondent : Notice Sent - Left O R D E R The petition for transfer is filed to transfer H.M.O.P.No.199 of 2020 from Sub Court, Kovilpatti to any other competent Court in Chennai.

¶6

The marriage and the respondent was solemnized on 08.03.2019 as per the Hindu Rites and Customs. The petitioner and the respondent started their Matrimonial home happily. On account of misunderstanding between the spouses, the petitioner states that she was forced to leave the Matrimonial home.

¶7

The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that during the COVID-19 period, the respondent asked the petitioner to reside in her parents house and thereafter, he had not returned back nor taken back the petitioner to Matrimonial home. Shockingly, the respondent/husband filed H.M.O.P.No.199 of 2020, seeking Dissolution of Marriage. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the after doing all these mischief, the respondent/husband had gone to abroad.

¶8

However, the petitioner/wife filed a petition in

¶9

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶10

H.M.O.P.No.738 of 2020 before the Sub Court, Poonamallee for Dissolution of Marriage. Under these circumstances, the petitioner is not in a position to effectively defend the divorce petition filed by the respondent before the Sub-Court at Kovilpatti.

¶11

5 . The principles regarding transfer petitions, more specifically in the matters of matrimonial cases are well settled through the decisions 3 of the High Court of Madras, in the following cases:-

¶12

(i) The Hon'ble Division Bench of the High Court of Madras in W.A.No.1181 of 2009, dated 09.07.2010 has held as follows:-

¶13

''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.

¶14

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.''

¶15

(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:''16.In AIR 2000 SC 3512 (1) (Mona Aresh Goel vs. Aresh Satya Goel), when the wife pleaded that she was unable to

¶16

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶17

bear the traveling expenses and even to travel alone and stay at Bombay, the Supreme Court ordered transfer of proceedings.

¶18

In 2000 (10) SCC 304, the Honourable Supreme Court has held that where the petitioner's wife has pleaded lack of money, the same has to be considered.

¶19

In 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.

¶20

In a decision reported in 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.

¶21

(iii) In a decision made in TR.CMP(MD)No.108 of 2010, dated 03.03.2011, the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, has observed as below:-

¶22

''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

¶23

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶24

must be a justifiable cause to select the jurisdiction of the Court where she resides.''

¶25

In view of the facts and circumstances, the H.M.O.P.No.199 of of 2020 pending on the file of the Sub Court, Kovilpatti, Thoothukudi District stands transferred to the Family Court, Chennai and H.M.O.P.No.738 of 2020 filed by the petitioner/wife for Dissolution of Marriage also stands transferred to the Family Court, Chennai and both the cases are to be tried together.

¶26

Accordingly, this Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition No.13 of 2021 stands allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶27

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
Kak
To
1.The Judge,
Sub Court,
Kovilpatti, Thoothukudi District.
2.The Judge,
Family Court, Chennai.

¶28

+1 cc to M/s.H.Rajasekar,Advocate Sr.No. 9974

¶29

Tr.CMP No.13 of 2021

¶30

JPII(CO) RMP(09/03/2021)

¶31

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

J.Geetha v. M.Vignesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

J.Geetha v. M.Vignesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Kandasamy Vs M.Kalaivani

N.Banu Vs B.Nagarajan

Chinnamani Vs Dhanalakshmi Finance Corpn.

Dhanasekari Vs Union of India

A.Abilasha Vs Sathyaganesh

K.R.Jayakumar Vs J.Ilancheliyan