IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Tr.P(C).No. 115 of 2009()
1. JUDY.P.A., AGED 39, S/O.ALEX,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SUMA, AGED 30, D/O.FRANCIS,
... Respondent
2. ALEX ANTONY, AGED 11/4, S/O.JUDY,
For Petitioner :SRI.G.KRISHNAKUMAR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
Dated :31/07/2009
O R D E R
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
-----------------------------------
Tr.P.C.No.115 of 2009
---------------------------------
Dated this the 31st day of July, 2009
O R D E R
This transfer petition is filed under Section 24 CPC.
Petitioner is the husband and respondent, the wife. The wife has
filed two petitions one for claiming maintenance as
M.C.No.158/2008 and the other for return of ornaments and
valuables as O.P.No.1245/2008, both petitions are pending
before the Family Court, Alappuzha. Husband has filed this
petition for transfer of those petitions to the Family Court,
Ernakulam.
2. Notice of the application was issued to the respondent,
but, service could not be effected. Pursuant to direction issued
by this Court, notice was served on the counsel appearing for the
respondent in the court below and a memo evidencing such
service has been filed. Service is found sufficient.
3. I heard the counsel for the petitioner.
4. Petitioner is employed in a private company. His
income is very meagre. No inconvenience will be caused to the
Tr.P.C.No.115 of 2009
2
wife, if a transfer is ordered to the Family Court, Ernakulam as
the distance to that court is more or less equal to the distance to
the Family Court, Alappuzha, and since he has to appear before
the Family Court, Alappuzha very often he cannot attend to his
work on a number of days and thereby suffer from loss of wages
etc., are the grounds canvassed to sustain the request for
transfer of the two petitions filed by the wife from the Family
Court, Alappuzha to the Family Court, Ernakulam. One of the
two petitions filed by the wife is a claim for maintenance under
Section 125 Cr.P.C imputing neglect on the part of the husband
to maintain her and also a child born out of their wedlock, aged
1= years, on the plea lack of her sustenance in life. Spouses
have a child aged 1= years and that infant is, admittedly, under
the care and custody of the wife, the mother. The child is not
getting the love and affection from the father and she depends
solely on the mother, wife, is a material circumstance that has
significant value in adjudging the merit of the transfer. If the
wife is directed to appear before the Family Court, Ernakulam,
leaving behind the child unattended, it is likely to have disastrous
Tr.P.C.No.115 of 2009
3
consequences and sometimes even psychological impact on the
child affecting her growth and wellbeing. I am not impressed by
the submission that the Family Court, Ernakulam and the Family
Court, Alappuzha are situate at equal distance from the residence
of the wife. May be, the wife for eking her livelihood, when she is
not provided by the husband, is engaged in some work, close to
her residence. She has not appeared and contested the
proceedings cannot be taken as a circumstance enuring in favour
of the husband for transfer as prayed for.
On the facts presented, I find the request for transfer is not
entertainable and the petition is dismissed.
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN,
JUDGE.
bkn/-