IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Tr.P(C).No. 157 of 2009()
1. ALBA, AGED 26 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. CHANDRA SEKHARAN VIJAYAN,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH
For Respondent :SRI.SAJU.S.A
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
Dated :03/07/2009
O R D E R
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
-----------------------------------
Tr.P.C.No.157 of 2009
---------------------------------
Dated this the 3rd day of July, 2009
O R D E R
This petition is filed under Section 24 CPC. Petitioner is the
wife and respondent, the husband, and they are hereinafter
referred to as such. Both of them are stated to be software
engineers. The husband at present is employed at Bangalore and
the wife, previously employed at Chennai, is now settled at
Thrissur. Marriage between the parties was, admittedly, two
years ago. But soon they got separated after having a child, now
aged two years, who is admittedly, under the care and custody of
the wife, the mother. Husband has filed a petition as
O.P.No.435/2009 for dissolution of the marriage before the
Family Court, Malappuram. Wife seeks transfer of that petition to
the Family court, Thrissur by moving this petition.
2. Notice on the petition being given, the husband has
entered appearance through counsel. I heard the counsel on
both sides.
3. At the time of hearing, it is submitted by the learned
counsel for the wife that she has moved another petition claiming
return of gold ornaments which are alleged to be retained by the
Tr.P.C.No.157 of 2009
2
husband and also for maintenance from him for herself and also
the child. That petition filed before the Family Court, Thrissur is
awaiting return of notice ordered to the husband. It is admitted
that, that petition was filed after filing this transfer petition. The
learned counsel for the husband submitted that there is no
inconvenience for the wife to attend the Family Court,
Malappuram and the transfer sought for under the petitioner is
without bonafides.
4. Having heard the counsel at length and taking note of
the facts and circumstances presented, it is inconvenient and
difficult for the wife to attend the matrimonial proceedings at a
court which is, admittedly, situated nearly 125 km away from her
residence. She has a case that her father is no more and there
are only female members at her residence. That also is a
circumstance to be taken note of in considering whether she will
be in a position to attend the court where the husband has
commenced matrimonial proceedings against her. More than
that, the interest of the minor child also deserve to be seriously
taken note of. Separation of the parents is likely to have a
psychological impact on the child and if he is deprived of the care
Tr.P.C.No.157 of 2009
3
and concern of the mother by driving her to attend a court ata far
away place to defend herself in the matrimonial proceedings
initiated by the father, it may have disastrous consequence on
the wellbeing and growth of the child. Taking note of that
circumstance also, I find that transfer of O.P.No.435/2009 to the
Family Court, Thrissur where the other O.P. already filed by the
wife is pending is necessary to advance the ends of justice. As
the husband is now employed in Bangalore, transfer of the above
case is not likely to cause him any inconvenience. So much so,
transfer of O.P.435/2009 from the Family Court, Malappuram to
the Family Court, Thrissur as prayed for by the wife is ordered
directing the former court to send the records of the case to the
latter court without delay.
Send a copy of the order to both courts and hand over a
copy to the counsel on both sides on usual terms.
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN,
JUDGE.
bkn/-