K.GAJAPRIYA Vs. P.MURUGANANTH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 08.03.2015 as per the Hindu rites and customs. The petitioner and the respondent commenced the matrimonial home at Chennai and after two months, the respondent started harassing the petitioner and thrown out the petitioner from the matrimonial home on 19.05.2015 itself. Sincere efforts taken by the elders of the petitioner's family went in vain and the respondent refused to resume to the matrimonial home. In spite of the repeated efforts of the petitioner for re-union, the respondent was reluctant in accepting re-union. Finally, the respondent filed HMOP.No.340 of 2016 before the Sub Court, Tambaram, for divorce. The contention of the petitioner is that she is residing at Trichy with her aged parents who are suffering from various ailments. Further, she has to travel about 330 kms for each and every hearings at Sub Court, Tambaram and it will be very difficult for her. The respondent has filed the divorce petition in order to harass the petitioner. Further, he is an influential person and possibility of threat is also there.

(2.) The contention of the respondent is that the petitioner used to pick up frequent quarrels with him and left the matrimonial home at her own volition and not at the instance of the respondent. The other contentions raised by the petitioner are frivolous and deserve no consideration.

(3.) The principles with regard to transfer petitions, more specifically, in the matters of matrimonial cases, are in favour of women and the decisions of the High Court of Madras, in the following cases interpreting Section 19(iii)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, also confirm that position:-