Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN THURSDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JULY 2021 / 10TH ASHADHA, 1943 TR.P(C) NO. 713 OF 2019 OP 150/2018 OF FAMILY COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA PETITIONER/S: 1 JEEVAN S., AGED 29 YEARS S/O. V. SASIDHARAN, KAKKATTU HOUSE, MUTHANA, PALAYAMKUNNU P.O, VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2 V. SASIDHARAN, AGED 66 YEARS S/O. VISHWAMBHARAN, KAKKATTU HOUSE, MUTHANA, PALAYAMKUNNU P.O, VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3 SONIYA, AGED 52 YEARS W/O. SASIDHARAN, KAKKATTU HOUSE, MUTHANA, PALAYAMKUNNU P.O, VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV M.R.SASITH RESPONDENT/S: NEEHARARAJAN R., AGED 25 YEARS D/O. RAJAN K.R, KOTTAKKATTU HOUSE, MANNAPPUZHA, KOONAMKARA, RANI-PERUNAD VILLAGE, RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-675001 BY ADVS. SRI.MANU RAMACHANDRAN SRI.M.KIRANLAL SRI.T.S.SARATH SRI.R.RAJESH (VARKALA) SHRI.AJAY JAYACHANDRAN THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.07.2021 ALONG WITH TRPC 760/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN THURSDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JULY 2021 / 10TH ASHADHA, 1943 TR.P(C) NO. 760 OF 2019 OPHMA 727/2019 OF FAMILY COURT, ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PETITIONER/S: NEEHARA RAJAN AGED 25 YEARS D/O.RAJAN.K.R., KOTTAKKATTU HOUSE, MANNAPPUZHA, KOONAMKARA, RANNI-PERUNAD VILLAGE, RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689711. BY ADVS. MANU RAMACHANDRAN SRI.M.KIRANLAL SRI.T.S.SARATH SRI.R.RAJESH (VARKALA) SHRI.AJAY JAYACHANDRAN RESPONDENT/S: JEEVAN S., AGED 30 YEARS S/O.V.SASIDHARAN, KAKKATTU HOUSE, MUTHANA.P.O., PALAYAMKUNNU, CHEMMARUTHY VILLAGE, VARKALA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695146. BY ADV SRI.M.R.SASITH THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.07.2021, ALONG WITH TRPC 713/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Dated this the 01st day of July, 2021 The spouses are at loggerheads with each other and have resorted to legal proceedings. The wife has filed O.P.No.150 of 2018 before the Family Court, Pathanamthitta for return of gold ornaments, money and movables. In turn, the husband has approached the Family Court, Attingal for divorce by filing O.P.(HMA) No.727 of 2018. In Tr.P.(C) No.760 of 2019, the wife seeks transfer of the original petition filed by the husband to the Family Court at Pathanamthitta and in Tr.P.(C) No.713 of 2018, the husband is seeking transfer of the original petition filed by the wife to the Family Court, Attingal.
2. Sri.Manu Ramachandran, learned Counsel
appearing for the wife submitted that the wife is residing in her family house at Mannappuzha in Perunad Village, within the jurisdictional limits of the Family Court, Pathanamthitta. It is submitted that the Family Court, Attingal is about 98 Kms from the wife's residence and she has no one to accompany her. It is contended that the husband has filed the original petition as a counterblast, after receiving notice in the original petition filed by the wife. It is pointed out that the husband is working abroad and seldom appears before the Family Courts. The decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court is relied on to contend that in transfer petitions pertaining to family disputes, convenience of the wife should be given preference.
3. Sri.Sasith Panicker, learned Counsel
appearing for the husband refuted the contentions and submitted that the wife is a permanent resident of Neyveli in Tamil Nadu and is working as a teacher in JPA Vidyala, Neyveli. To buttress this argument, attention is drawn to the Facebook profile of the wife. It is submitted that the parents of the husband, who are suffering from age related ailments, are unnecessarily made respondents in the original petition filed by the wife. The physical condition of the husband's parents makes it extremely difficult for them to travel up to Pathanamthitta for contesting the case.
4. In reply, Sri.Manu Ramachandran submitted
that the wife had studied at Neyveli and had worked only as a trainee at the JPA Vidyala, as evidenced by Annexure R1 certificate. The learned Counsel reiterated that the wife is residing at her family house in Perunad village
5. Having heard the learned Counsel, I find
more merit in the request for transfer made by the wife. In this regard, it may be pertinent to refer to the decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court in Sumita Singh v Kumar Sanjay and another [(2001) 10 SCC 41, Rajani Kishore Pardesh v Kishore Babulal Pardesh [(2005) 1 SCC 237] and a plethora of other decisions, in transfer petitions arising from matrimonial cases, convenience of the wife should be preferred over that of the husband. In Leena Mukherjee v. Rabi Shankar Mukherjee [(2002) 10 SCC 480], the Apex Court has held lack of a companion for the wife to accompany her to the court, as a reasonable ground for transfer. In the result, Tr.P.(C) 713 of 2019 is dismissed and Tr.P.C 760 of 2019 is allowed. The Family Court, Attingal shall forthwith transfer O.P.(HMA) 727 of 2018 to the Family Court, Pathanamthitta. The parties shall appear before the Family court, Pathanamthitta on 24.08.2021. The transferee court shall not insist for personal presence of the parties, unless it is absolutely necessary. Sd/- V.G.ARUN JUDGE Scl/01.07.2021 APPENDIX OF TR.P(C) 713/2019 PETITIONER ANNEXURE ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE O.P. NO. 150/2018
FILED BY THE RESPONDENT AGAINST THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE HON'BLE FAMILY COURT AT PATHANAMTHITTA DATED 19.02.2018. ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE FACEBOOK PROFILE OF THE RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE RADIOLOGY REPORT OF THE 2ND PETITIONER ISSUED FROM AMRITA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE AND RESEARCH CENTRE DATED 05.10.2019.
APPENDIX OF TR.P(C) 760/2019 PETITIONER ANNEXURE ANNEXURE A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE O.P.NO.150/2018 ON THE FILES OF FAMILY COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA. ANNEXURE A2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE O.P. (HMA)NO.727/2018 ON THE FILES OF THE FAMILY COURT, ATTINGAL.