DIVYA VIKRAM Vs. VIKRAM VIJAYARAGHAVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The wife is the petitioner and the husband is the respondent in the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition. the respondent herein/husband filed HMOP No.110/2016 on the file of the Family Court, Chennai, which is now pending on the file of the I Additional Judge, Family court, Chennai, for a decree of divorce dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent herein. The petitioner in the transfer civil miscellaneous petition (wife) has now come forward with the present petition for the transfer of the above said OP, namely HMOP No.110/2016 to the file of the Family Court, Coimbatore, within whose jurisdiction she resides. The respondent has filed a counter containing several allegations pertaining to the merits of the main HMOP.

(2.) The arguments advanced by Ms. P.T.Asha, learned counsel for the petitioner and by Mr.G.K. Harihara Rajan, learned counsel for the respondent are heard. The materials produced in the form of typed set of papers are also perused.

(3.) Ms.P.T.Asha, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that after the introduction of Section 19(iii-a) of the Hindu Marrriage Act, 1955, the place of residence of the wife is also made a place wherein the matrimonial OP can be filed, either it be a petition filed by the husband or a petition filed by the wife; that as such, the prayer made by the petitioner for the transfer of the HMOP to the Family Court, Coimbatore is nothing but a prayer for the transfer of the case from one court having jurisdiction to the other court having jurisdiction regarding the very same matter; that if at all the prayer has been made for transferring the HMOP to a court within whose jurisdiction the cause of action did not arise and in which court the petition could not have been filed, then the objection made by the respondent would have some substance in it and that the prayer made by the petitioner (wife) for the transfer of the HMOP from one jurisdictional court to the other jurisdictional court on the ground of convenience should be liberally considered in favour of wife, so as to give a meaningful effect to the intention of the Legislature in enacting Section 19(iii-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.