High Court Kerala High Court

Indira vs K.R.Dileep Kumar on 28 January, 2008

Kerala High Court
Indira vs K.R.Dileep Kumar on 28 January, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Tr P(C) No. 266 of 2007()


1. INDIRA, D/O.VASUDEVA PANICKER,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. K.R.DILEEP KUMAR,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.SUNIL CYRIAC

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN

 Dated :28/01/2008

 O R D E R
                           M.N.KRISHNAN, J.
                           --------------------------
                        Tr.P.C. NO. 266 OF 2007
                             ---------------------
              Dated this the 28th day of January, 2008

                                  ORDER

This transfer petition is filed with a prayer to transfer OP

561/07 on the file of the Family Court,Alappuzha to the Family Court,

Kottayam at Ettumanoor. Unfortunately, the couple had fallen out

and the present petition is one for dissolution of the marriage.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that she has to travel to

a distant place like Alappuzha, which is about 100 Kms. away from

her residence. It is a fact that she is conducting some business in

Alappuzha. The factum that the Family Court, Kottayam at

Ettumanoor is situated 100 Kms. away from Alappuzha is absolutely

incorrect. The Apex court in the decision reported in Anindita Das v.

Srijit Das [2006 (9) SCC 197] has held that it is not desirable to allow

transfer applications indiscriminately and the court has to apply its

mind to the facts and circumstances of each case for a transfer. The

Apex court observed that the leniency shown by the court is misused

by the ladies. This is a case where the wife is carrying out the

business at Alappuzha and that her case is pending at Family Court,

Tr.P.C. No.266/07 2

Alappuzha. When she can come to do the business every day at

Alappuzha, I do not know why she could not conduct the case at

Alappuzha.

Therefore, I do not find any ground to transfer the case. But

I make it clear that since the case involves the question of adultery, it

is mandatory and desirable that it shall be tried as a proceeding in

camera. When the transfer petitioner finds it difficult to attend the

court on days, where her presence is not really necessary, and

moves an application for exemption, that may be considered and

liberally allowed by the court below.

The transfer petition is disposed of accordingly.

M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE

vps

Tr.P.C. No.266/07 3