Valsala Chandran vs Chandrasekhara Pillai on 20 August, 2007

Last Updated on

Kerala High Court
Valsala Chandran vs Chandrasekhara Pillai on 20 August, 2007




Tr P(C) No. 103 of 2007()

                      ...  Petitioner


                       ...       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.


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.



Tr.P.C. No. 103/2007 : 4 :

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *