Liji John vs Reji D.Thomas on 7 October, 2010

Kerala High Court
Liji John vs Reji D.Thomas on 7 October, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Tr.P(C).No. 264 of 2010()


1. LIJI JOHN, AGED 26 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. REJI D.THOMAS, S/O.DEVASYA THOMAS,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.  K.SHAJ

                For Respondent  :SRI.R.SURAJ KUMAR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH

 Dated :07/10/2010

 O R D E R
                             THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.
                            --------------------------------------
                       Tr.P.(C) Nos.264, 265 & 266 of 2010
                            --------------------------------------
                     Dated this the 7th day of October, 2010.

                                         ORDER

These petitions are for transfer of matrimonial proceedings pending in

Family Court, Kottarakkara to Family Court, Thiruvalla. Petitioner/wife is a

resident of Konni Village, in Pathanamthitta District while respondent/husband

is residing near Anchal, in Pathanapuram Taluk, Kollam District. O.P.(G&W)

No.711 of 2010 is a petition filed by respondent/husband in Family Court,

Kottarakkara for custody of the child aged five years. Petitioner/wife filed

O.P.No.342 of 2010 in the same court against respondent/husband and his

father for recovery of patrimony and other reliefs. O.P.(DA) No.726 of 2010 is a

petition for divorce filed by petitioner/wife, also in the same court. Learned

counsel for petitioner/wife states that travelling distance from the residence of

petitioner to Pathanamthita where Family Court, Thiruvalla has camp sitting is

only 8 (eight) kms. while she has to travel a long distance to Family Court,

Kottarakkara. It is pointed out that if the cases are transferred to Family Court,

Thiruvalla and the same are taken up in the camp court at Pathanamthitta,

respondent need travel only about 15 kms. more that the distance he has to

travel from his place of residence to Family Court, Kottarakkara. Learned

counsel for respondent contended that there is no ground to transfer the cases

to Family Court, Thiruvalla.

Tr.P.(C) Nos.264, 265 & 266/2010

2

2. The Supreme Court in Sumitha Singh v. Kumar Sanjay

and another (AIR 2002 SC 396) and Arti Rani v. Dharmendra

Kumar Gupta [(2008) 9 SCC 353] has stated that while considering

request for transfer of matrimonial proceedings convenience of the wife has to

be looked into. True that does not mean that inconvenience if any of the

husband need not be considered. On hearing learned counsel on both sides it is

seen that Pathanamthitta is closer to the residence of petitioner/wife while if the

cases are transferred to Family Court, Thiruvalla and are taken up in the camp

court at Pathanamthitta, inconvenience of respondent/husband is only to the

extent of travelling a further distance of about 15 kms. from his place of

residence. If the cases continued at Kottarakkara, petitioner has to travel a

longer distance. She may have to be accompanied by some relative of her.

That involves much expense also. Having regard to the comparative hardship I

am inclined to think that the hardship of petitioner/wife if the request is not

allowed outweighs the inconvenience that may be caused to the

respondent/husband if the request is allowed. Considering all relevant

aspects of the matter, I am inclined to allow these petitions.

Resultantly these petitions are allowed in the following lines:

i. .O.P.(G&W) No.711 of 2010, O.P.No.342 of 2010 and O.P.(DA)

No.726 of 2010 of Family Court, Kottarakkara are withdrawn from that court

and made over to Family Court, Thiruvalla for trial and disposal.

Tr.P.(C) Nos.264, 265 & 266/2010

3

ii. It is open to the parties or any of them to request the Presiding

Officer of Family Court, Thiruvalla to post all the cases at the camp court a

Pathanamthitta and if any such request is made, the Family Court, Thiruvalla

shall pass appropriate orders after hearing both sides.

iii. The transferor court shall, while transmitting records of the cases to

the transferee court fix date for appearance of parties in the transferee court

with due intimation to the counsel on both sides.

iv. Presiding Officer of the transferee court shall ensure that as far as

possible all the cases are posted on the same dates.

I.A.No.2178 of 2010 in Tr.P.(C) No.264 of 2010, I.A.No.2179 of 2010 in

Tr.P.(C) No.265 of 2010 and I.A.No.2180 of 2010 in Tr.P.(C) No.266 of 2010 will

stand dismissed.

THOMAS P.JOSEPH,
Judge.

cks

Leave a Reply

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

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *