IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Tr P(C) No. 188 of 2006()
1. ANITHA, D/O.ANANDAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SUDHARSANAN, S/O.SIVADASAN,
... Respondent
2. THE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION
For Petitioner :SRI.M.SREEKUMAR
For Respondent :SRI.VAKKOM N.VIJAYAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :16/01/2008
O R D E R
M.N.KRISHNAN, J.
--------------------------
Tr.P.C. Nos. 188 & 189 OF 2006
---------------------
Dated this the 16th day of January, 2008
ORDER
Tr.P.C. No. 188/06 is preferred to transfer O.P. 1199/05
pending before the Family Court, Nedumangadu, to Family Court,
Thiruvananthapurm. Tr.P.C. No. 189/06 is preferred to transfer O.P.
1198/05 pending before the Family Court, Nedumangadu, to Family
Court, Thiruvananthapurm.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/wife and
respondent/husband. It is very strongly contended by the learned
counsel for the petitioner that if the case is tried at Nedumangadu, it
will cause great inconvenience to the petitioner for the reason that
she has to board two buses to reach Nedumangadu, which is
comparatively having a little more distance than from attending the
Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. First of all, it is always the
intention of the legislature that has to be taken note of. As the
specific court is conferred with jurisdiction of trying a case the power
under Section 24 of the civil procedure code cannot be arbitrarily
exercised to take away the jurisdiction of that court. I am absolutely
Tr.P.C. Nos. 188 & 189/06 2
conscious of the fact that women are weaker section of the Society
and there may be difficulty for them too. But in all cases it is not so.
It is true that these two cases were filed in the Family Court,
Thiruvananthapuram, which was later transferred on account of the
establishment of a new Family Court. Family Court, Nedumangadu,
is comparatively a lighter court than the Family Court,
Thiruvananthapuram. The contention that one has to change the
bus or one has to travel about 30Kms. more is not a valid reason for
transfer. The Apex court in the decision reported in Anindita Das v.
Srijit Das [2006 (9) SCC 197] had given a caution that each case
has to be decided on the facts of that case. The Apex court held that
“At one stage the Supreme Court was showing leniency to ladies.
But since then it has been found that a large number of transfer
petitions are filed by women taking advantage of the leniency show
by the Supreme Court. On an average at least 10 to 15 transfer
petitions are on board of each court on each admission day. It is,
therefore, clear that leniency of the Supreme Court is being misused
by the women. The Supreme Court is now required to consider each
petition on its merit.”
3. Therefore, the court has to be guarded when it
Tr.P.C. Nos. 188 & 189/06 3
entertains a transfer application. Otherwise it may lead to a situation
where the parties will be at liberty to choose a forum whereby the
mandate of the legislature is done away with. I feel there are no
sufficient grounds to effect the transfer. But, at the same time I make
it clear that when the petitioner or the respondent in the case is not
able to attend the court on account of their inconvenience and if they
move application for exemption that may be liberally granted and the
insistence of the party’s personal appearance be dispensed with
unless there is real reasons for their presence before the court. For
other formal postings, the attendance of the parties shall not be
insisted by the court.
With these observations, the transfer petitions are
dismissed.
M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE
vps
Tr.P.C. Nos. 188 & 189/06 4