IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Tr.P(C).No. 5 of 2010()
1. MEERA KRISHNAN, AGED 27,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. PAVAN.C.ADIYODI, 37 YRS,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT
For Respondent :SRI.B.PREMNATH (E)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :18/10/2010
O R D E R
THOMAS P JOSEPH, J.
----------------------------------------
Tr.P(C).Nos.5 and 6 of 2010
---------------------------------------
Dated this 18th day of October, 2010
ORDER
These petitions are for transfer of O.P.Nos.1500 and 1501
of 2009 from Family Court, Nedumangad to Family Court,
Kannur. The said petitions are filed by the respondent/husband
for custody of the minor child and for restitution of conjugal
rights. Petitioner/wife, it is not disputed is a resident of
Taliparamba, in Kannur District while respondent is a permanent
resident of Trikkaripur in Kannur District but now staying at
Thiruvanathapuram in connection with his employment as a
Software Engineer (learned counsel for respondent was however
not able to say about the permanent residence of respondent).
Learned counsel for petitioner states that she has to travel all the
distance from kannur to Nedumangad to contest the cases.
Learned counsel for respondent states that if the cases are
transferred to Kannur it may not be possible for respondent to
appear in that court and it may also affect his employment as a
Software Engineer at Thiruvananthapuram as he has to often
take leave. As I stated, fact of residence of petitioner at
Taliparamba is not disputed. Petitioner is aged about 27 years.
Tr.P(C).Nos.5 and 6 of 2010
: 2 :
The distance from Kannur to Thiruvanathapuram is more than
500 kms even going by train and from Thiruvananthapuram
petitioner has to travel by bus to reach Nedumangad. It may
even take 2 days for her to go to Nedumangad and same time to
return to her place of residence. Petitioner/wife is aged 27 years,
has necessarily to be accompanied by some relatives which
involves expense also. The Supreme Court in Sumitha Singh
Vs. Sanjay Kumar & Another (AIR 2002 SC 396) and Arti
Rani Lrs. Pinki Devi and Another Vs. Darmendra Kumar
Gupta (2008(9) SCC 353) stated that while considering request
for transfer in matrimonial proceedings convenience of the wife
has to be looked into. Having regard to the facts and
circumstances of the case I am inclined to think that comparative
hardship of petitioner/wife if the cases continued at Nedumangad
is much more than the hardship that respondent may be put to, if
the cases are transferred to Family Court, Kannur. I must also
bear in mind that petitioner has filed M.C.No.483 of 2008 in the
Family Court, Kannur claiming maintenance from respondent and
that petition is pending in that court. In connection with that
case respondent has to go to that court. So far, no request for
transfer of that case is made by respondent. In the
Tr.P(C).Nos.5 and 6 of 2010
: 3 :
circumstances stated above I am inclined to allow the transfer
requested by petitioner/wife.
Resultantly this petition is allowed in the following lines:
(i) O.P.Nos.1500 of 2009 and 1501 of 2009
pending in Family Court, Nedumangad are
withdrawn from that court and made over to Family
Court, Kannur.
(ii) The transferor court shall transmit
records of the cases to the transferee court with due
intimation to counsel on both sides as to the date of
appearance in transferee court.
(iii) Transferor court shall ensure that all
the cases between the parties are posted as far as
possible on the same dates.
(iv) It is made clear that except when
physical presence of respondent is required, he can
appear through counsel in the transferee court.
(THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE)
Sbna/-