Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2443 (MAD)

M. Sharmila v. B. Vignesh Parthiban

2022-08-01

R.N.MANJULA

body2022
JUDGMENT (Prayer: Petition is filed under Section 24 of C.P.C., to withdraw the proceedings in O.P.No.142 of 2021, pending on the file of the Subordinate Court, Gudiyatham and to transfer the same to the file of the Sub Court, Vaniyambadi.) 1. This petition is filed to withdraw the proceedings in O.P.No.142 of 2021, pending on the file of the Subordinate Court, Gudiyatham and to transfer the same to the file of the Sub Court, Vaniyambadi. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the materials available on record. 3. The petitioner is the wife and respondent is the husband. The marriage between the petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 26.11.2020 as per Hindu Rites and Customs. Since, the relationship between the couples went bitter, the Respondent/Husband filed O.P.No.142 of 2021, pending on the file of the Subordinate Court, Gudiyatham against the petitioner seeking divorce. Now, the petitioner herein who is the wife has preferred the present petition to withdraw O.P.No.142 of 2021, pending on the file of the Subordinate Court, Gudiyatham and transfer the same to the file of the Sub Court, Vaniyambadi. 4. The petitioner has stated that she is staying with her aged parents and it is very difficult for the petitioner to travel from Vaniyambadi to Gudiyatham, for attending the Court proceedings at Gudiyatham. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that if the matter is transferred to Vaniyambadi, the relatives of the wife will threaten him and safety will be affected. The petitioner also stated that the husband and his relatives have already threatened the wife when she attended the Court proceedings at Gudiyatham. 6. Since both the parties alleged threat at the hands of each other, the learned counsel for both sides are requested to advise their respective parties not to threaten each other, but to conduct the case. 7. It is needless to state that in matrimonial proceedings, preference should be given to the convenience of the wife. The said position has been settled in various Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and more particularly in the Judgments reported in 2008 (9) SCC 353 [Arti Rani @ Pinki Devi and another Vs. Dharmendra Kumar Gupta] and AIR 2002 SC 396 [Sumita Singh Vs. Kumar Sanjay and another]. The said position has been settled in various Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and more particularly in the Judgments reported in 2008 (9) SCC 353 [Arti Rani @ Pinki Devi and another Vs. Dharmendra Kumar Gupta] and AIR 2002 SC 396 [Sumita Singh Vs. Kumar Sanjay and another]. Infact as per the amended Section 19(iii-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the wife is guarded with the right to file proceedings in the place where she resides. The above amendment was brought with the object of facilitating the wife to participate in the matrimonial proceedings without any hardship. In view of the above reasons, I feel that the prayer of the petitioner should be considered favourably. 8. Accordingly, the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. The petition in O.P.No.142 of 2021 filed by the Respondent is ordered to be withdrawn from the file of the Subordinate Court, Gudiyatham and transferred to the file of the Sub Court, Vaniyambadi. The learned Judge, Subordinate Court, Gudiyatham is directed to transmit all the records pertaining to O.P.No.142 of 2021 to the file of the Sub Court, Vaniyambadi, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.