High Court Kerala High Court

Dhanya Eliz Abraham vs Jubin Joy John on 24 August, 2009

Kerala High Court
Dhanya Eliz Abraham vs Jubin Joy John on 24 August, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Tr.P(C).No. 222 of 2009()


1. DHANYA ELIZ ABRAHAM,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. JUBIN JOY JOHN, S/O.JOY JOHN,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.GEO PAUL

                For Respondent  :SRI.G.SHRIKUMAR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN

 Dated :24/08/2009

 O R D E R
                    S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
                - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                         Tr.P.(C) No.222 of 2009
                - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                         Dated: 24th August, 2009

                                    ORDER

This petition for transfer is filed under Section 24 of the C.P.C.

Petitioner is the wife and the respondent, the husband. Husband has

filed the petition for declaring the marriage as null and void and that

petition numbered as O.P.(Divorce)No.436 of 2009 is pending before

the Family Court, Alappuzha. Wife seeks transfer of the above

petition to the Family Court, Ernakulam stating that she is

permanently settled at Ernakulam and she has none to assist her to

go over and to defend the proceedings launched by the husband at

the Family Court, Alappuzha.

2. Notice on the petition given, respondent/husband has

entered appearance. He has filed a counter resisting the application

for transfer. I heard the counsel on both sides. Learned counsel for

the petitioner submits that the wife is unemployed, she does not have

independent income and she depends on her parents for sustaining

her life. Since she is settled at Ernakulam, it will be difficult and

inconvenient for her to go over to Alappuzha to defend the

proceedings launched by her husband and there is none to assist her

in case the proceedings are continued at that place, according to the

Tr.P.C.No.222/09 – 2 –

learned counsel. On the other hand, learned counsel for the

respondent would contend that the marriage of the parties took place

at Mavelikkara and the distance to Alappuzha so far as the husband

and the wife are concerned is equal and there is no merit in the

claim of the wife that she will face inconvenience and hardship if the

proceedings are continued in the Family Court, Alappuzha which has

jurisdiction to entertain such proceedings. A2 is the copy of the

petition filed by the husband seeking a declaration that the marriage

is null and void. Perusing A2, I find the main challenge raised to

sustain the relief for declaration is that the wife suffers from mental

illness and she has evinced symptoms of schizophrenia. In assessing

comparative hardship of the parties in considering the request for

transfer, the allegations raised in the petition may also have some

significance. When the husband has got a case that the wife is a

schizophrenic, to insist her to go over to a Family Court situate at a

far away place from her ordinary place of residence, cannot be

justified. I need not go into the merits of the allegations raised, but

the allegations so raised, in the given facts of the case, have to be

taken note of for considering the request for transfer made by the

wife. So much so, I find that transfer of the case to the Family Court,

Tr.P.C.No.222/09 – 3 –

Ernakulam from the Family Court, Allapuzha has to be passed and it

is ordered accordingly. I direct the Judge, Family Court, Alappuzha to

transfer the records of the case to the Family Court, Ernakulam

without delay, at any rate, within a period of three weeks from the

date of receipt of a copy of this order. Parties are directed to appear

before the Family Court, Ernakulm on 5th October, 2009. Transfer

Petition is disposed as above.

srd                           S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE