Alba vs Chandra Sekharan Vijayan on 3 July, 2009

Kerala High Court
Alba vs Chandra Sekharan Vijayan on 3 July, 2009




Tr.P(C).No. 157 of 2009()

                      ...  Petitioner


                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH

                For Respondent  :SRI.SAJU.S.A


 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


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


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.



Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information