Mrs. Geetha vs T. Seeralan

Prabha Sridevan, J.—The wife is the petitioner who wants transfer of the matrimonial O.P. from the Sub-Judge, Tindivanam to the Sub-

Court, Periakulam. The petitioner and the respondent were married on 22.5.1996 at Thethanur village as per Hindu Law. A child was born to

them, but the married life has not been pleasant. According to the petitioner, the respondent and his parents have been insulting and harassing her.

The respondent is also not interested in maintaining her and her child. The respondent has now filed H.M.O.P. No. 75/1999 before the Sub-

Judge-Tindivanam. She claims that it is very difficult for her to go all the way from Chinnamanur with her child to Tindivanam which is 1,100 kms.

away, for every hearing. According to her, from 25.4.2000, she has been attending the hearing with her parents. According to her, the respondent

is thereatening to kill her. According to her, she is very worried about the safety of her child and, therefore, wants transfer.

A counter has been filed by the respondent denying all the averments made by the petitioner in her affidavit in support of the Tr. C.M.P. He has

also stated therein that the matter is no pending only before a Sub-Court and, therefore, the petitioner need not be present for every hearing. The

allegations of threat of violence made by her were stoutly denied. The respondent had also expressed his difficulty to leave the Headquarters

abruptly and, therefore, prays that the transfer should not be ordered.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner reiterated the averments made in the affidavit and also produced before the Court, four judgments of the

Supreme Court Theja V. Nagarjuna Vs. V. Nagarjuna, ; Lalita A. Ranga Vs. Ajay Champalal Ranga, , Lalita A. Ranga Vs. Ajay Champalal

Ranga, and Geeta Heera v. Harish Chander Heera, (2000) 10 SCC 304 , to support his case.

The learned Counsel for the respondent on the other hand, submitted that the petitioner''s only intention is to harass him and there is no

justification for transfer. It was also stated by the learned Counsel that it will be difficult for the respondent to leave the Headquarters abuptly since

his presence is necessary to meet urgent calls. It was specifically stated in the counter that the petitioner had not attended the hearing for three or

four occasions. He has also denied the allegations made about the respondent threatening the petitioner.

Petitions are filed as a matter of routine by wives for transfer of the matrimonial proceedings to Courts of their choice. In some cases, there are

genuine reasons like the pendency of an earlier petition between the same parties or physical disability of the wife etc. But, very often, it appears to

the Court that the indulgence granted to women are misused by unjustified applications for transfer. It cannot do better than to quote from the very

lucid expression of the views of this Court in the judgment reported in 2000 (2) TLNJ 158, Sudha v. Vaidyanathan. The learned Judge has clearly

stated that transfer''s cannot be ordered for the asking merely because the petitioner is a woman. The learned Judge held as follows :

At the outset it may be stated that the procedural law, neither under the Code of Civil Procedure, nor under the respective personal laws relating

to the marriage, makes any distinction between sexes and the jurisdiction is decided on basis of specific factors such as place where the marriage

took place, or where parties resided together or where the respondent resides etc. The choice is given to the petitioner irrespective of the sex of

the petitioner. If the wife is the petitioner, she is given the privilege of choosing the Forum and the husband has to come from wherever he is and

vice versa. As long as a petition is filed correctly in terms of the statutory provisions, it is not expected of the Courts to unnecessarily interfere

unless a strong case is made put for transfer of jurisdiction. It cannot be definitely on the basis of sex alone. Convenience of one party cannot be a

ground for transfer because it is inherent and it would be positively inconvenient to the other person if the transfer should be against his wish. I have

not been shown any statutory provision or beinding decision which would require that when a woman seeks a transfer of the proceedings it should

be automatically granted.

On the other hand, orders have been passed only in the light of facts and circumstances of each case. Recently, certain transfer orders had been

passed by this Court on a sympathetic consideration of the plight of the women folk especially having the burden of looking after small children.

But the sympathy thus shown appears to be wrongly utilised and had resulted in a spate of transfer petitions on behalf of womenfolk on an

assumption that their petitions for transfer are routine and should be automatically allowed. With the result, most of the proceedings before the

Family Courts are delayed and kept pending till the disposal of the transfer petitions.

There cannot be a difficult yard stick for deciding the question of jurisdiction on the only basis of the sex of the petitioner. If in other civil

proceedings such discrimination is not visualised, I fail to understand why it should be different in matrimonial proceedings. Several difficulties have

been expressed in many cases on the side of the husbands especially, if they happen to be in Government service or even under private

employment and also facing financial constraints. It is also pointed out that merely for the sake of seeking joint trial, one spouse after receiving

notice in a proceeding initiated by other spouse, would file a related proceeding in his or her own convenient place and seek for transfer of the

earlier proceedings to be tried along with the later proceedings in the place where the later proceedings had been filed.

Therefore, I feel that in entertaining petitions for transfer, certain basic and broad guidelines have to be formulated to avoid unnecessary spate of

petitions before this Court and for the sake of some uniformity and certainty. I am aware that the guidelines cannot be exhaustive and would

depend upon the peculiar features of each case.

As stated earlier, when once there is no dispute over the correctness of the jurisdiction where a petition had been filed, then transfer can be

visualised only for very strong reasons as is normally available u/s 24, C.P.C. such as genuine apprehension of bias of the Judicial Officer,

convenience of both parties, availability of majority of witness, ill-health of the party seeking transfer etc. subject to the said grounds being

substantiated on proper evidence. A woman having custody of a tender child below the age of five yeras or if there is any positive evidence of

violence and dowry harassment against her, her request for transfer should be allowed. If no such special circumstances are available, the spouse

seeking, transfer should be agreeable for payment for travelling expenses to the opposite party. Unless the husband is a self employed person and

if he is employed either as a Government servant or in a private firm, it would be unreasonable to expect him to be available for all the hearing

dates at a different place. The same would apply to the female spouse if she is employed in such a capacity. Therefore, the pros and cons of all

facts and circumstances have to be considered.

I feel that the following guidelines may be helpful in dealing with most of the applications seeking for transfer :

(a) if the woman has the custody of any child, born out of wedlock, less than five years of age;

(b) if any one of the spouse suffers due to any physical disability; or any chronic illness as would render him or her difficult to travel which should

be duly certified by a Surgeon /Physician in Government service;

(c) where the respondent in Transfer Petition does not have objection to the transfer or where the respondent in the Transfer Petition also resides

in the same place;

(d) where the joint trial or proceedings pending in two places are sought for, it would be decided on the basis of the date of filing the petition and

the petition filed subsequently will be transferred to the place where the earlier petition had been filed;

(e) last place of residence should be a permanent place or if temporary, for an indefinite period of residence and not a place where the living was

only casual or transitory;

(f) when there is positive evidence such as police complaint etc. at the husband''s place, prima facie establishing that the wife had been subjected to

physical torture or dowry harassment;

(g) if none of the aforementioned nor any other justifiable reason is available for transfer, then the person seeking transfer should be ready to pay

the incidental expenses, like travelling expenses for stay during the ""hearing to the other spouse, either a consolidated amount or fixed amount for

each hearing should be paid during the previous hearing itself.

The above guidelines are only illustrative situations aimed at avoiding frivolous petitions. Each case is likely to involve peculiar fatures which have to

be duly considered even though one of the above conditions may exist.

The learned Judge has also referred to the stereotyped allegations made in such petitions and as to how a blind approach will result in an

artificial and unfair exception with regard to the issue of jurisdiction throwing aside the procedural law in this regard. In this case, there is no other

proceeding pending before any other Court which is earlier in point of time to H.M.O.P. No. 75/1999. The petitioner''s case that she has to attend

every hearing and has also attended every hearing, has been disputed by the respondent on the ground that she has not, in fact, attended all the

hearings. One inescapable fact is that the proceedings are pending before the Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam and it is not a Family Court which

makes personal hearing mandatory on each date. She has stated that she attends each hearing with the help of her parents incurring a huge

expense. That can be set right by directing the respondent to pay her expenses for attending the hearing. Since she has engaged a Counsel to deal

with the case before the Sub-Judge, Tindivanam, it is enough if she attends the Court on the date when her evidence is required.

In the decision reported in 2000 (2) SCC 355 (cited supta), the proceedings were pending before the Family Courts. So, the wife expressed

her inability to attend each and every hearing with a young child and, therefore, her transfer petition was granted.

In the decision reported in Theja V. Nagarjuna Vs. V. Nagarjuna, , the husband who is the respondent did not appear in Court on the date of

hearing and moreover, the matter involved Courts in two different States one in Karnataka and one in Andhra Pradesh. Therefore, the distance to

be travelled by her was taken into account and, therefore, the transfer was ordered.

In the decision reported in 2000 (9) SCC 441 (cited supra), the wife was staying at Trichur. The matrimonial suit was pending at Ranchi which

is far away in the north and the learned Judges of the Supreme Court took note of the fact that the wife had to undertake a train journey of 48

hours alone and on this ground, the transfer was ordered.

In the decision reported in Geeta Heera v. Harish Chander Heera, (2000) 10 SCC 304 , the learned Judges transferred the matrimonial

proceedings from the Court of the Civil Judge in U.P. to the Court of the District Judge in Haryana on the ground of insufficiency of funds. The

apprehension expressed by the wife in the above case with regard to personal safety was specifically not gone into by the Supreme Court.

In this case, I am not ordering the petition for transfer for the following reasons :

The proceedings are not pending before a Family Court, which requires the presence of the petitioner for every hearing, so even though there is a

child, the distance will not be a material factor. The apprehension that there is threat to her personal safety has been denied by the respondent. I

also have to bear in mind, the express difficulty faced by the respondent, who cannot leave his headquarters abruptly. The only other ground that

remains is lack of funds, which, I think, can be set right by directing the respondent to pay her conveyance expenses. As stated above, the

decisions cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner do not apply to this case. The guidelines laid down in 2000 (2) TLNJ 158 come to my aid

for arriving at this decision. I, therefore, direct the respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/- as conveyance expenses for the petitioner, her child and

any other person who she may bring to escort her. I also direct the learned Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam to ensure that the evidence of the

petitioner, both chief and cross-examination is concluded in one day, so that, the petitioner will not have to travel the same distance unnecessarily.

The respondent is warned that he shall in no way intimidate or threaten the petitioner when she attends the Court for the hearings. It is only

because, he has solemnly sworn to in the counter that he has not threatened the petitioner, this Court has accepted his assurance and on that basis,

arriyed at this conclusion. The Tr.C.M.P. is, therefore, dismissed. CM.P. No. 3224/2G01 is closed.