Allowed

R.Salniya v. K.Ramesh

Madras HC15 Dec 2022TR CMP/992/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court allowed a transfer petition filed under Section 24 of the CPC. The court directed the transfer of an ongoing Hindu Marriage Act proceeding from the Principal Family Court at Coimbatore to the Family Court at Manargudi, where the wife resides, due to her financial constraints and the impracticality of traveling to Coimbatore.

What did the court decide?

HMOP No.695 of 2022 transferred from Principal Family Court at Coimbatore to Family Court, Manargudi, with directions to transmit papers within two weeks.

R.Salniya Vs K.Ramesh — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

Tr.C.M.P.No.992 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 15.12.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶6

Tr.C.M.P.No.992 of 2022 and C.M.P.No.16967 of 2022

R.Salniya

... Petitioner

Vs.

K.Ramesh

... Respondent

Prayer: Transfer CMP is filed under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code, to withdraw and transfer the HMOP No.695 of 2022 pending on the file of the Principal Family Court at Coimbatore and transfer the same to the file of Family Court, Manargudi..

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.P.T.Rakesh For Respondent : No Appearance

¶14

Page 1 of 8

¶15

Tr.C.M.P.No.992 of 2022

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

The petition for transfer is filed to withdraw the HMOP No.695 of

¶18

2022 from the file of the Principal Family Court at Coimbatore and transfer the same to the Family Court, Manargudi..

¶19

The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnised on 19.11.2010. A baby boy was born from and out of wedlock between the petitioner and the respondent, now the child is aged about 12 year. That apart the petitioner is unemployed and residing along with her

¶20

parents. Thus, she is depending on her parents for her livelihood. Therefore, the case of the petitioner is to be considered.

¶21

3 . The principles regarding transfer petitions, more specifically in the

¶22

matters of matrimonial cases, are well settled through the three decisions of the High Court of Madras, in the following cases:-

¶23

(i) The Hon'ble Division Bench of the High Court of Madras in

¶24

W.A.No.1181 of 2009, dated 09.07.2010 , wherein in paragraphs-21 and 22,

¶25

it has been observed as under:-

¶26

Page 2 of 8

¶27

Tr.C.M.P.No.992 of 2022

¶28

“ 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.

¶29

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

¶30

Page 3 of 8

¶31

Tr.C.M.P.No.992 of 2022

¶32

Government. Therefore such a beneficial provision meant for the women of our Country should be given a meaningful interpretation by Courts.”

¶33

(ii) In yet another case in Tr.CMP.Nos.138 and 139 of 2006, dated

¶34

30.08.2006 , the High Court of Madras has considered the following judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India:-

¶35

“(1) In the case of Mona Aresh Goel vs.

¶36

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.

¶37

(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.

¶38

(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,

¶39

Page 4 of 8

¶40

Tr.C.M.P.No.992 of 2022

¶41

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.

¶42

(4) In a decision in Archana Singh vs.

¶43

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 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.”

¶44

(iii) In a decision made in TR.CMP(MD)No.108 of 2010, dated

¶45

Page 5 of 8

¶46

Tr.C.M.P.No.992 of 2022

¶47

03.03.2011 , the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, wherein in paragraph-18, it has been observed as below:-

¶48

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

¶49

Considering the facts and circumstances, the HMOP No.695 of

¶50

2022 pending on the file of the Principal Family Court at Coimbatore stands transferred to the Family Court, Manargudi. The Principal Family Court at Coimbatore is directed to transmit the case papers to the Family Court,

¶51

Page 6 of 8

¶52

Tr.C.M.P.No.992 of 2022

¶53

Manargudi within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶54

With the abovesaid directions, the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous

¶55

Petition stands allowed . However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶56

Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶57

sha

¶58

15.12.2022

¶59

Index : Yes Speaking order

¶60

¶61

Principal Family Court at Coimbatore.

¶62

Family Court, Manargudi.

¶63

Page 7 of 8

¶64

Tr.C.M.P.No.992 of 2022

¶65

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

¶66

sha

¶67

Tr.C.M.P.No.992 of 2022

¶68

15.12.2022

¶69

Page 8 of 8

R.Salniya v. K.Ramesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Salniya v. K.Ramesh

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

P. Priya Vs E. Anbumani

R.Dinakaran Vs Rajajthi

V. Panchatcharam Vs S. Rajan

The Managing Director Vs D. Mohan

U. Divyarani Vs N.S. Vivek Narayanan

Abinayajothi Vs T. Vigneshkumar