IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Tr.P(C).No. 196 of 2009()
1. SMITHA V., AGED 28 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SARATH KUMAR, AGED 31 YEARS,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.SATHISH NINAN
For Respondent :SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
Dated :27/07/2009
O R D E R
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
-------------------------------
Tr.P.(C).NO.196 OF 2009 ()
-----------------------------------
Dated this the 27th day of July, 2009
O R D E R
Petition is for transfer filed under Section 24 of the Code
of Civil Procedure. Petitioner is the wife, and the respondent,
the husband. The husband has filed a petition as
O.P.No.114/2009 before the Family court, Thrissur seeking
the dissolution of their marriage. Wife seeks transfer of that
petition to Family Court, Thiruvalla, within the jurisdiction of
which she is residing.
2. Notice on the application given, husband has
appeared through his counsel. The learned counsel for the
husband contended that the Family court, Thiruvalla has
already disposed of another petition moved by the wife in
which an adverse order was passed against him. That petition
relate to a claim by the wife for return of gold ornaments
Tr.P.(C).196/09 2
allegedly retained by the husband. Learned counsel for the
husband submits that if at all a transfer is ordered, the
petition may be transferred to Family court, Aleppey. The
learned counsel for the wife submitted that she has to look
after a three year old child born out of the wedlock and there
is none to take care of that infant. Her inability to attend the
Family Court at Aleppey as the child requires her care and
attention is canvassed by the counsel for the transfer of the
O.P. as requested for in the petition.
3. The plight of an estranged wife to take care of an
infant, aged three years, has to be taken into account
considering the merit of the request for transfer moved by
her. The child who has been deprived of the love and affection
of the father in view of the estrangement of the spouses, no
doubt, will suffer severe mental and psychological pressure in
case he is not getting proper care and attention from his
mother. So much so, the interest of the child has also to be
looked into and considered in determining the rival case
presented by the spouses in the matter of transfer. If the wife
Tr.P.(C).196/09 3
is compelled to go over to Family court, Aleppey, I have no
doubt that more than the difficulties faced by her, the child
will suffer. That being so, I find the request of the wife for
transfer of the case to Family court, Thiruvalla has to be
granted. There is no merit in the apprehension canvassed that
as the Judge, Family court, Thiruvalla has already decided one
case against the husband of course he may not get fair deal.
No imputation is made against the Judge by the husband and
the apprehension canvassed without anything more cannot be
taken note of as a valid ground for transferring the case to
Family court, Aleppey as desired by him. I direct the Judge,
Family court, Thrissur to transfer O.P.No.114/2009 to the
Family Court Thiruvalla. The Judge Family court, Thiruvalla
on receipt of the records, shall give notice to the parties for
appearance.
Petition is allowed.
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
JUDGE
prp
Tr.P.(C).196/09 4