High Court Kerala High Court

Rashitha vs Biju Lal on 6 September, 2010

Kerala High Court
Rashitha vs Biju Lal on 6 September, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Tr.P(C).No. 251 of 2010()


1. RASHITHA, D/O.K.K.RAJAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. BIJU LAL, S/O.LATE BALAKRISHNAN,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.V.SOHAN

                For Respondent  :SRI.JACOB ABRAHAM

The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH

 Dated :06/09/2010

 O R D E R
                             THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.
                           --------------------------------------
                             Tr.P.(C) No.251 of 2010
                           --------------------------------------
                  Dated this the 6th day of September, 2010.

                                        ORDER

This petition is filed by the wife who is a resident of Talassery in

Kannur District seeking transfer of O.P. Nos.474 of 2010 and 108 of 2010 from

Family Court, Kozhikode to Family Court, Kannur. Those petitions are filed by

the respondent/husband for custody of children and for divorce. Petitioner

states that she is a resident of Thalassery, in Kannur District, children are

studying at Thalassery and that she has to travel a long distance to attend

Family Court, Kozhikode. Respondent is a resident of Elathur, in Kozhikode

District . Learned counsel for petitioner requests that the cases may be

transferred to Family Court, Kannur. Learned counsel for respondent

contended that in O.P.No.474 of 2010 there is an order to produce the child in

the court concerned, but petitioner is not complying with that order.

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.

Tr.P.(C) No.251/2010

2

3. Considering the fact that petitioner is a lady aged about 35 years,

that she has to travel a long distance and that she has to be accompanied by

somebody which involves huge expenses, the comparative hardship on the

petitioner is higher if the request for transfer is not allowed than the hardship on

the respondent if request for transfer is allowed. Hence I am inclined to allow

this petition.

Resultantly this petition is allowed in the following lines:

i. O.P. Nos.474 of 2010 and 108 of 2010 pending in Family Court,

Kozhikode are withdrawn from that court and made over to Family Court,

Kannur for trial and disposal.

ii. 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.

iii. It is made clear that except when physical presence of respondent

is required in the transferee court it is open to him to appear through counsel.

iv. Transferee court shall ensure that as far as possible all the cases

are posted on the same dates.

Tr.P.(C) No.251/2010

3

v. It is made clear that it will be open to the respondent to enforce the

interim order if any passed in O.P.No.474 of 2010 in the transferee court.

I.A.No.2040 of 2010 will stand dismissed.

THOMAS P.JOSEPH,
Judge.

cks