R. Selvameena v. N. Renganathan
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 08.11.2016 Coram:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM Tr.C.M.P.(MD).No.346 of 2015 and M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2015 R.Selvameena .. Petitioner/Respondent Vs.
N.Renganathan .. Respondent/Petitioner PRAYER: Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying to withdraw the case in H.M.O.P.No.93 of 2014 on the file of the Family Court, Dindigul and to transfer the said case on the file of the Family Court, Madurai and tried along with H.M.O.P. No.348 of 2012 and M.C.NO.40 of 2012 on the file of the Family Court, Madurai. For Petitioner : Mr.T.C.S.Thillainayagam For Respondent : Mrs.N.Juliet Latha
O R D E R
This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed seeking for transfer of H.M.O.P.No.93 of 2014 from the file of the Family Court, Dindigul, to the file of the Family Court, Madurai to be tried along with H.M.O.P. No.348 of 2012 and M.C.NO.40 of 2012.
2. The respective counsels both for the petitioner and the respondent are heard.
3.The petitioner is the wife of the respondent. The respondent had filed a petition for divorce in H.M.O.P.No.1698 of 2012 before the Family Court at Chennai. Subsequently, Transfer C.M.P.No.191 of 2012 was filed before this Court seeking transfer of H.M.O.P.No.1698 of 2012 from the file of Family Court, Chennai to Family Court, Madurai and the same was ordered on 11.12.2012 transferring the case to the file of the Principal Sub Court, Dindigul. Subsequent to the constitution of Family Court, Dindigul, the case was tranferred to the Family Court, Dindigul, and the case was re-numbered as H.M.O.P.No.15 of 2013.
4. The petitioner further filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights in H.M.O.P.No.348 of 2012 before the Family Court, Madurai along with a petition seeking interim maintenance in M.C.No.40 of 2012. A case under Section Domestic Violence Act in M.C.No.109 of 2014 is also pending before the Additional Mahila Court, Madurai.
5. The contention of the petitioner is that all these three cases are pending before the Family Court, Madurai and the only case filed by the respondent seeking divorce in H.M.O.P.No.93 of 2014 alone is pending before the Family Court, Dindigul and it will be inconvenient for both the parties to appear before the Family Court, Dindigul and if that case is transferred along with other three cases, joint trial can be conducted and it will be convenient to the parties.
6. The learned counsel for the respondent would vehemently oppose the petition by stating that the petitioner and her parents are influential persons at Madurai and they are frequently threatening the respondent during hearing of the cases both at Dindigul and Madurai. Due to continuous threatening, the respondent is afraid if the case is transferred to Madurai.
7. The learned counsel for the respondent admits that the respondent is working at Chennai and insofar as his appearance before the court is concerned, the respondent has to travel from Chennai either to Dindigul or Madurai. In view of the admitted fact that the respondent is working at Chennai, it makes less difference as far as the respondent is concerned.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he will advise the petitioner not to indulge in such act of threatening the respondent and she will co-operate peaceful conduct of the case at Madurai.
9. The principles regarding transfer petitions, more specifically in the matters of matrimonial cases are well settled through the 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 has held as follows:- ''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 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:- ''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.
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.
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.
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 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, has 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 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.''
10. In view of the above judgments, the place of the wife is preferable and in the present case, the circumstances narrated by the petitioner deserve consideration.
11. In the result, this petition is allowed with the following directions:
i. The learned Judge, Family Court, Dindigul is directed to transmit the records in respect of H.M.O.P.NO.93 of 2014 to the Family Court, Madurai within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
ii. The learned Judge, Family Court, Madurai is directed to try both H.M.O.P.Nos.93 of 2014 and 348 of 2012 and M.C.No.40 of 2012 together and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible.
No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.(MD) No.1of 2015 is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CSI) /True Copy/ Sub-Assistant Registrar To 1.The Judge, Family Court, Dindigul.
2.The Judge, Family Court, Madurai.
+One cc to Mr.C.Vakeeswaran, Advocate, SR.No.66872 +One cc to Mr.R.Narayanan, Advocate, SR.No.66777 CM RL/5C/4P/KM/22.11.2016 Tr.C.M.P.(MD).No.346 of 2015 and M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2015 08.11.2016