IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Tr P(C) No. 103 of 2007()
1. VALSALA CHANDRAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. CHANDRASEKHARA PILLAI,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP
For Respondent :SRI.T.KRISHNAN UNNI
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :20/08/2007
O R D E R
M.N. KRISHNAN , J
==========================
Tr. P.(C) NO. 103 OF 2007
==========================
Dated this the 20th day of August, 2007.
ORDER
This transfer petition is filed by the wife in O.P. No.
453/2002 pending before the Family Court, Kottarakkara to
transfer it to Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor where O.P.
No. 652/2006 and M.C. No.44/2007 is pending. The unfortunate
couple had crossed the age of 50 and in the evening of their life
they wanted to get themselves separated. So many connected
proceedings are pending before the courts. It is submitted that
the husband is an employee in the gulf countries and is having
substantial income. The wife has filed O.P. No. 652/2006 for
money due to her and M.C. No. 44/2007 for maintenance. The
main case is the petition for divorce which is pending before the
Family Court at Kollam that was transferred from the said court
when the Family Court at Kottarakkara was established. The
main grievance is that the petitioner has to travel about 100
kms. from her place to Kottarakkara and that will cause
Tr.P.C. No. 103/2007 : 2 :
inconvenience to her. The Supreme Court in the decision
reported in Anindita Das v. Srijit Das (2006 (9) SCC 1967)
has held that transfer petitions filed by the wives also has to be
considered on the merits of the case. The learned counsel for the
respondent submitted that while the matter was pending before
the Family Court at Ettumanoor there was a compromise entered
into between the parties and subsequently the wife resiled from
the same and she has moved the application for transfer the case
to the Family Court at Ettumanoor. It is clear from the averment
in the petition itself that in a case under the Domestic Violence
Act she had obtained residence in a building belonging to the
husband at Trivandrum and it is averred that she is now residing
at Trivandrum. The picture which she wanted to project is her
inconvenience to travel from Ettumanoor to Kottarakkara falls to
the ground when it is seen from the petition filed by herself that
she is residing at Trivandrum. The issues involved are not
common and they are different and I am informed by the counsel
for the respondent that evidence has been adduced relating to
the return of money and it is posted for the respondent’s
Tr.P.C. No. 103/2007 : 3 :
evidence. Maintenance case is independent of these matters and
it can be decided by the court so the projected inconvenience
made by the transfer petitioner does not appear to be genuine,
bonafide or truthful especially in the back drop of attempted
settlement before the very same court and resiling from the
same. Therefore, I find no bonafides in the petition for transfer
on the facts of the case and therefore it is dismissed.
M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE.
rv
Tr.P.C. No. 103/2007 : 4 :
