E.Krishnaveni (F/40) v. L.Muralidharan (M/48)
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 24.10.2016
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM TR.C.M.P(MD)No.41 of 2016 and C.M.P(MD)Nos.829 & 830 of 2016 E.Krishnaveni ... Petitioner Vs.
L.Muralidharan ... Respondent Prayer: Petition filed under Section 24 of Civil Procedure Code to withdraw the proceedings in H.M.O.P.No.1045 of 2015 on the file of the Family Court, Madurai and to transfer the same to the file of the Family Court, Tirunelveli.
For Petitioner : Mr.J.Jeyakumaran For Respondent : No appearance
ORDER
The present petition is filed seeking to withdraw the proceedings in H.M.O.P.No.1045 of 2015 on the file of the Family Court, Madurai and to transfer the same to the file of the Family Court, Tirunelveli.
2.The marriage between the petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 28.11.1999, as per Hindu Rites and Customs. Out of the wedlock, a male child was born on 04.06.2001. 3.The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner and respondent are living separately from the year 2004 onwards and there is no scope for re-union. The male child is now with the petitioner and school going.
4.The further contention of the petitioner is that the respondent filed H.M.O.P.No.281 of 2005 before the Family Court, Madurai, for restitution of conjugal rights and the petitioner earlier filed Tr.C.M.P.No.4045 of 2006, which was allowed by this Court and accordingly, the petition was transferred to the Family Court, Tirunelveli and the respondent not pressed the above said H.M.O.P seeking for restitution of conjugal rights and again he filed a fresh petition in H.M.O.P.No.331 of 2008 seeking divorce before the Family Court, Madurai. The petitioner was once again
forced to file Tr.C.M.P.No.193 of 2008 and the same was allowed by this Court and the divorce case was transferred to the sub Court, Kovilpatti. After a full-fledge trial, H.M.O.P.No.331 of 2008 seeking divorce, which was re-numbered as H.M.O.P.No.61 of 2009, was dismissed on 18.08.2009. No appeal was filed by the respondent. Contrarily, the respondent filed a fresh petition in H.M.O.P.No.1045 of 2015 for divorce by incorporating a new address.
5.The main ground raised by the petitioner is that now she is living with her parents at Tirunelveli and no independent source of income, since the petitioner is unemployed. Further, she is a dependant of her parents along with the child and not in a position to spend and travel to defend the case at Madurai. 6.Though notice served on the respondent, the respondent has not appeared either in person or through any counsel. 7.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 (iiia) 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.''
8.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.
9.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is inclined to consider the case of the petitioner and accordingly, this transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed and H.M.O.P.No.1045 of 2015 pending before the Family Court, Madurai, is ordered to be transferred to the file of the Family Court, Tirunelveli, forthwith. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petitions are also closed.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS I) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Judge, Family Court, Madurai.
2.The Judge, Family Court, Tirunelveli.
+1cc to Mr.J.Jeyakumaran, AdvoCATE SR.No.63053 ps sm:PV:08/11/2016:4P/4C TR.C.M.P.(MD)No.41 of 2016 24.10.2016