High Court Kerala High Court

Mareena Scaria vs Prince George on 11 July, 2008

Kerala High Court
Mareena Scaria vs Prince George on 11 July, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Tr.P(C).No. 126 of 2008()


1. MAREENA SCARIA, AGED 23 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. PRINCE GEORGE, AGED 26 YEARS,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU

                For Respondent  :SRI.S.SUDHISH KUMAR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

 Dated :11/07/2008

 O R D E R
                     M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.

                        -------------------------------

                         Tr.P.(C) No.126 of 2008

                        -------------------------------

                       Dated this the 11th July, 2008.

                                 O R D E R

Petitioner is the wife and respondent is husband. This

petition is filed to transfer O.P.No.298 of 2008, a petition filed before

the Family Court, Ernakulam, for restitution of conjugal rights by the

respondent, to Kottayam. The case of petitioner is that she is residing

at Chirakadavu and has to travel 110 Kms. to attend Family Court,

Ernakulam, and respondent is residing at Angamaly which is only 30

Kms. from Ernakulam and 65 Kms. to Family Court, Kottayam, and in

such circumstances, case may be transferred to Family Court,

Kottayam.

2. Respondent filed a counter affidavit stating that he is

working in Bomaby and has to come to Ernakulam by flight and if the

case is to be transferred to Kottayam, it will take two more days, and

in such circumstances, the transfer would cause much difficulty. It is

also contended that distance from the residence of the petitioner to

Family Court, Kottayam, is not so near and in such circumstances,

there is no reason order transfer.

Tr.P.(C) No.126/2008

2

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and

learned counsel appearing for respondent were heard.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

submitted that parents of the petitioner are having ailments and

cannot accompany petitioner to Ernakulam, and in such

circumstances, the case may be transferred to Kottayam.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent

pointed out that counselling of the case is over and presence of the

petitioner is necessary only on the date on which evidence is to be

recorded and the respondent is prepared to meet her travelling

expenses and in such circumstances, and the case may not be

transferred.

6. Even according to the petitioner, the distance from

the residence of the petitioner to Family Court, Kottayam is 60 Kms.

Therefore, even if the case is to be transferred to Family Court,

Kottayam, petitioner has to travel a distance of 60 Kms. What she

would be saving is distance from Ettumannoor to Ernakulam. Presence

of the petitioner is not necessary for each posting date. Family Court

Tr.P.(C) No.126/2008

3

could be directed to dispense with the presence of the petitioner on all

posting dates.

In such circumstances, I do not find it necessary to

order transfer sought for, considering the difficulties expressed by the

husband. Family Court, Ernakulam is directed not to insist for the

presence of the petitioner, except on the day on which her evidence is

to be recorded. When evidence of the petitioner is to be recorded,

the Family Court shall direct respondent-petitioner before the Family

court, to direct to deposit the travelling expenses by taxi to Family

Court, Ernakulam, and only if the amount is deposited, presence of

the respondent is to be insisted upon.

Transfer petition is disposed as above.

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,
JUDGE

nj.