High Court Kerala High Court

Shinimol vs Joby on 14 October, 2008

Kerala High Court
Shinimol vs Joby on 14 October, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Tr.P(C).No. 261 of 2008()


1. SHINIMOL, AGED 30 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. JOBY, AGED 31 YEARS, S/O.GOPALAKRISHNAN,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.MVS.NAMBOOTHIRY

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN

 Dated :14/10/2008

 O R D E R
                              M.N.KRISHNAN, J
                         =====================
                           Tr.P.(C) No.261 OF 2008
                         =====================

                 Dated this the 14th day of October 2008

                                 JUDGMENT

This transfer petition is filed to transfer O.P.(Div.)No.390/2005 and

O.P.(HMA)No.584/2005 pending before the Family Court, Kollam to the

Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The transfer petitioner is the wife. It is

contended that her father is aged and therefore she cannot travel to Kollam

and therefore cases must be transferred to Thiruvananthapuram. In all cases,

this practical difficulty will be there. The distance between Kollam and

Thiruvananthapuram is not that much which prevents a person from

travelling. The wife herself has chosen to file a petition for restitution of

conjugal rights before the Family Court, Kollam and the husband has filled

divorce petition before the same court. The averments are not sufficient to

effect a transfer, but, at the same time, the difficulty that is experienced has

to be reduced.

Therefore, I dispose of the transfer application as follows: The cases

shall continue to be in the Family Court at Kollam and it is directed not to

insist for the presence of the parties on each and every hearing date and they

Tr.P.C.261/2008 -:2:-

shall be asked to attend the court for the purpose of conciliation and

thereafter for evidence or in emergent situations where their presence is

warranted. Day-to-day presence of the parties on every hearing date shall be

dispensed with so that hardships to both sides can be reduced.

M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE

Cdp/-