IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Tr P(C) No. 28 of 2007()
1. REMANI K.THOMAS, KOCHUPURACKAL HOUSE,
... Petitioner
2. M.J.UNNI, KOCHUPURACKAL HOUSE,
Vs
1. DR.PREETHA THOMAS, MULAMOOTIL VEETIL,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.BASANT BALAJI
For Respondent :SRI.MVS.NAMBOOTHIRY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.P.BALACHANDRAN
Dated :05/03/2007
O R D E R
K.P.BALACHANDRAN, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Tr.P.(C)NO.28 OF 2007
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 5th day of March 2007
ORDER
The petitioners are defendants 2 and 3 in O.P.675/06 on the
file of the Family Court, Thiruvalla. It is submitted that their son
is the first defendant in the said suit and that the respondent is
the wife of the first defendant. O.P.675/06 has been filed by the
respondent for return of 12,00,000/- and value of gold ornaments
to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- and all and compensation of
Rs.5,00,000/- with interest etc. The prayer of the petitioners is
to transfer the said O.P. from the Family Court, Thiruvalla to the
Family Court, Trivandrum and that is vehemently opposed by the
counsel for the respondent. It is contended by counsel for the
petitioners that the first petitioner is a heart patient that though
she is allowed to be represented through a lawyer the second
petitioner has not been allowed to be represented through
lawyer and that no difficulty will be caused to the respondent by
a transfer of the case as the respondent is employed in
Technopark at Thiruvananthapuram.
2. The transfer is vehemently opposed by the counsel for
respondent. According to him, the respondent’s house is at
Tr.P.(C)NO.28 OF 2007
2
Thiruvalla and the witnesses to be examined are also at
Thiruvalla and it is only that the respondent is employed
temporarily at Thiruvananthapuram and the respondent will be
put to much inconvenience, if the case filed in Thiruvalla Family
Court is transferred to the Family Court, Trivandrum. He also
points out that in para 3 of the petition it is alleged that during
November 2006, the petitioners constructed a new house at
Ramangiri near Changanassery and it was there that notice in
the above O.P. was served on the petitioners. The first
petitioner entered appearance before the Family Court through a
counsel but the second petitioner was not so allowed to be
represented through a counsel. According to the counsel for the
respondent the attempt of the petitioners is somehow to get a
transfer of the case from Family Court, Thiruvalla.
3. I have ascertained from the counsel for the petitioner
that the ailment is only for the first petitioner and not for the
second petitioner. However, the Family Court, Thiruvalla has
allowed the first petitioner to be represented through a lawyer.
Consequently, therefore the presence of the first petitioner will
Tr.P.(C)NO.28 OF 2007
3
be required in the Family Court only when she is specifically
ordered to be present and not otherwise and she can be
represented by her lawyer before the Family Court. Admittedly,
marriage was solemnised at Thiruvalla and relatives of both
parties are also at Thiruvalla and Changanacherry. Witnesses
also will be from that place only and if transfer of the case is
ordered to the Family Court, Trivandrum much inconvenience
will be caused to the respondent and probably to the petitioners
also as the witnesses will have got down to Trivandrum for the
purpose of this case if they want to examine any witness.
In the circumstances, I dispose of this transfer petition
disallowing the prayer for transfer; and at the same time
directing the Family Court, Thiruvalla not to insist for personal
appearance of first petitioner unless her presence is highly
essential for any purpose whatsoever. On other occassions she
can be allowed to be represented though her lawyer.
K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JUDGE
jes