Allowed

A.Geetha v. M.Madhumohan

Madras HC8 Mar 2021TR CMP/68/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought transfer of a divorce petition from the Family Court, Coimbatore to Chengalpattu due to financial hardship and distance. The court allowed the transfer but remitted the case to the Family Court, Chennai instead, citing settled principles regarding jurisdiction in matrimonial disputes under Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

What did the court decide?

H.M.O.P.No.217 of 2020 transferred from Family Court, Coimbatore to Family Court, Chennai; no order as to costs.

A.Geetha Vs M.Madhumohan — Matrimonial and Divorce | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 08.03.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶5

TR.C.M.P.NO.68 OF 2021

¶6

A.Geetha .. Petitioner
vs.
Mr.M.Madhumohan .. Respondent
PRAYER :
Transfer CMP is filed under Section 24 of the Civil
Procedure Code, to withdraw the H.M.O.P.No.217 of 2020 on the
file of the Family Court at Coimbatore and transfer the same to
be tried before the Hon'ble Principal District Court at
Chengalpattu.

¶7

For Petitioner : M/s.S.Kala
For Respondent : Mr.B.Mohan
For Mr.M.N.Balakrishnan
O R D E R

¶8

The petition for transfer is filed to transfer H.M.O.P.No.217 of 2020 from the Family Court, Coimbatore to the Principal District Court, Chengalpattu.

¶9

The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 07.04.2019 as per the Hindu Rites and Customs. The petitioner states that she was harassed by the respondent and forced to leave the Matrimonial home. Now she is residing along with her parents at Urapakkam, which is nearby Chengalpattu. The petitioner is now depending on her parents for all her needs and she is unemployed. Thus, she is not in a position to spend and contest the divorce petition filed by the respondent before the Family Court at Coimbatore.

¶10

3. The learned counsel for the respondent/husband states that the petitioner/wife is having Vision problem in her one eye.

¶11

4. This Court is of the considered opinion that such an illness alone cannot be a ground for declaration of marriage as

¶12

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

¶13

nullity. But the learned counsel reiterated that one eye is blind and the husband has got a medical report. However, all these factors are to be adjudicated.

¶14

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner/wife states that she is capable of performing her works efficiently and in a regular manner. When the wife is capable of performing her Matrimonial obligations and perform her duties, there is no reason whatsoever to nullify of marriage. However, the fact remains that the petitioner is unemployed and now residing in her parents house and she is not in a position to travel to Coimbatore and contest the case.

¶15

6. T he 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:-

¶16

(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:-

¶17

''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 Government. Therefore such a beneficial provision meant for the women of

¶18

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

¶19

our Country should be given a meaningful interpretation by Courts.''

¶20

(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:-

¶21

''16.In AIR 2000 SC 3512 (1) (Mona Aresh Goel vs. Aresh Satya Goel), 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.

¶22

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.

¶23

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.

¶24

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.

¶25

(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:-

¶26

''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

¶27

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

¶28

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.''

¶29

In view of the facts and circumstances, H.M.O.P.No.217 of 2020 pending on the file of the Family Court, Coimbatore, stands transferred to the Family Court, Chennai.

¶30

Accordingly, this Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition No.68 of 2021 stands allowed and H.M.O.P.No.217 of 2020 pending on the file of the Family Court, Coimbatore, is directed to be transferred to the Family Court, Chennai. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶31

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS IV)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
Kak
To
1. The Judge,
Family Court, Coimbatore.
2. The Judge,
Family Court, Chennai.
Tr.CMP.No.68 of 2021
VSNII(CO)
CS/01/04/2021

¶32

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

A.Geetha v. M.Madhumohan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Geetha v. M.Madhumohan

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

V.Pavithra Vs S.Manohar

A Sal Malabar Beedi Dept.(P) Vs M.K.Haridas

K.Vijayaragavan Vs State Rep by Inspector of

P.Paldinakaran @ Raja Vs the Union of India Owning

Rajalakshmi Vs Union of India Owning Southern Railway

Mr. Arunprasath a. Vs Mrs. Thenmozhi v.