IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Tr P(C) No. 54 of 2007()
1. RAJA NARAYANAN, AGED 39 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. PRIYA GOPINATHAN, AGED 33 YEARS,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.MOHAN JACOB GEORGE
For Respondent :SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :06/08/2007
O R D E R
M.N.KRISHNAN, J.
-----------------------------
Tr.P.C.Nos. 54 & 89 OF 2007
-----------------------------
Dated this the 6th August, 2007.
JUDGMENT
Tr.P.C.89/07 is filed by the wife for transfer of O.P
(HMA) 810/06 filed by the husband for divorce before the
Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor. The other petition
54/07 is filed by the husband to transfer O.P.1681/06
pending before the Family Court at Ernakulam to the Family
Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor. This is a case where both
the husband and wife have filed two applications for
divorce in two different courts. According to the wife she
is employed in Bangalore and it will be inconvenient for
her to attend the Family Court, Kottayam and therefore, it
must be transferred to Family Court at Ernakulam. The
husband would contend that the very filing of the second
divorce petition itself is mischievous and it is only to
harass him and as per Section 21A of the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955 when petitions are filed for the same relief in
two different courts the procedure to be followed is to
transfer the case filed later to the other court where the
earlier case is pending and, therefore, it is submitted
that the case at Ernakulam be transferred to Kottayam. At
the outset I may like to state that Ernakulam is not the
permanent residence of the wife. It is submitted that she
Tr.P.C.Nos: 54 & 89/07 2
belongs to Pathanamthitta district and she is living at
Bangalore. Now the contention is if she wants to come by
train it will take her more time to travel to the Family
Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor and, therefore, considering
her convenience the transfer should be effected. Learned
counsel for the husband would contend that Section 21A will
be clearly a bar for such prayer. The husband and wife
both have approached the courts for the same relief of
divorce. The husband had approached the court at the
earliest instance and Section 21A prescribes the procedure
how a later case filed for the same relief should be dealt
with. So, one has to respect the statutory obligation
unless there are such convincing inconvenience for the
other side. When a client comes for a case her or his real
presence is necessary only at times when conciliation talk
is going on and in case of its failure at the stage of
trial where parties have to be examined. It is the list
system that is followed in this state. When the matter is
listed the case will go on, on the basis of a day to day
trial system. So when the trial commences neither the
husband nor the wife can afford to leave the place on the
very same day. Similarly for preparation of the case also
it may not be possible for a party to arrive exactly in
time to instruct the lawyer. The running time between
Ernakulam and Kottayam by train at the most is 60 to 90
Tr.P.C.Nos: 54 & 89/07 3
mts. The grounds suggested are not so serious which
requires a consideration beyond the statutory obligation
cast upon the court under Section 21A of the Hindu Marriage
Act. Therefore, I find as contended by the counsel for the
husband that the way out in this case is to transfer
O.P.1681/06 pending before the Family Court at Ernakulam to
the Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor for joint trial
and disposal. But at the same time I direct the Family
Court, Kottayam at Etttumanoor not to insist for the
presence of the wife unless it is so required because the
parties arrival from Bangalore to Kottayam at Ettumanoor on
formal posting days will be very difficult and almost an
impossible task. So this aspect be borne in mind when an
application is filed for exempting her from personal
appearance before the court. With these observations
O.P.1681/06 pending before the Family Court, Ernakulam is
transferred to the Family Court,Kottayam at Ettumanoor to
be tried along with O.P.810/06 pending before the said
court. Both the transfer petitions are disposed of
accordingly.
M.N.KRISHNAN
Judge
jj