IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Tr.P(C).No. 316 of 2008()
1. BINDHU.S.G.NATH, W/O.N.BALAGOPALAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. N.BALAGOPALAN, S/O.M.NANU PILLAI,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY
For Respondent :SRI.V.G.SANKARAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :13/03/2009
O R D E R
K.T.SANKARAN, J.
------------------------------------------------------
TR.P.(C) NO. 316 OF 2008
------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 13th March, 2009
O R D E R
There are three cases as between the petitioner and the
respondent, pending before the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram and
the Family Court, Palakkad. O.P.(HMA) No.1184 of 2007 was filed by the
respondent – husband, before the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram,
against the petitioner – wife, for restitution of conjugal rights. O.P.(G&W)
No.67 of 2008 was filed by the respondent before the Family Court,
Thiruvananthapuram for custody of the child. O.P.No.732 of 2008, before
the Family Court, Palakkad was filed by the wife for divorce. All the three
cases are pending. The petitioner-wife has filed this Transfer Petition,
seeking transfer of the two cases pending before the Family Court,
Thiruvananthapuram to the Family Court, Palakkad, where O.P.No.732 of
2008 is pending.
2. Both the parties belong to Thiruvananthapuram. The wife is
employed at Palakkad. The husband is employed at Calicut. The
husband has challenged the jurisdiction of the Family Court, Palakkad to
entertain O.P.No.732 of 2008. According to the husband, the Family
Court, Palakkad has no jurisdiction to try the case.
TR.P.(C) NO.316 OF 2008
:: 2 ::
3. If the two cases at Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram are
prosecuted there, the husband as well as the wife will have to travel from
Calicut and Palakkad respectively, to Thiruvananthapuram. As things
stand, the husband has to attend the Family Court, Palakkad as well, so
long as his contention regarding lack of jurisdiction is not decided in his
favour. It is only proper that all the three cases are tried before the same
Family Court. Which court shall try the cases is the question. I do not
think that either the husband or the wife desires the cases to be tried by
the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram because both would be put to
great prejudice if the cases are tried before the Family Court,
Thiruvananthapuram. Then the next question is whether the Family
Court, Kozhikode or the Family Court, Palakkad shall try the cases,
notwithstanding the challenge of the territorial jurisdiction of the Family
Court, Palakkad to try O.P.No.732 of 2008. The fact remains that the wife
is employed at Palakkad. The comparative hardship of the husband and
wife to attend the Family Court, Kozhikode or Palakkad, as the case may
be, is to be taken note of. I am of the view that the wife would be put to
great prejudice than the husband if the cases are to be tried by the Family
Court, Kozhikode. Taking into account all the relevant facts, I am of the
view that it would be ideal to both parties if all the cases are tried and
disposed of by the Family Court, Palakkad.
TR.P.(C) NO.316 OF 2008
:: 3 ::
Accordingly, the Transfer Petition is allowed. O.P.(HMA) No.1184
of 2007 and O.P.(G&W) No.67 of 2008, pending before the Family Court,
Thiruvananthapuram shall stand transferred to the Family Court, Palakkad
where O.P.No.732 of 2008 is pending. It is made clear that the order in
the Transfer Petition will not affect the contention of the husband that the
Family Court, Palakkad has no jurisdiction to try O.P.No.732 of 2008.
Registry shall communicate the order to the Family Court, Palakkad and
the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram.
(K.T.SANKARAN)
Judge
ahz/