IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 3RD ASHADHA, 1944
TR.P(C) NO. 607 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP. NO. 586/2019 OF FAMILY COURT,
ALAPPUZHA
PETITIONER/PETITIONER:
RENJU,
AGED 42 YEARS,
D/O. RAJU,
RAJUBHAVANAM, SOUTH MANKUZHI,
PULLIKKANAKKU P.O.,
KAYAMKULAM -695 304.
BY ADVS.
JOBY CYRIAC
FASNA T.Y
KURIAN K JOSE
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
AJITH GOPINATH,
AGED 50 YEARS
S/O.K. GOPI,
AJIPRIYA, A.N. PURAM WARD,
PAZHAVEED, ALAPPUZHA.
THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 24.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
T.R.P(Civil)No.607 of 2021
2
ORDER
Dated this the 24th day of June, 2022 The transfer petition is filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking to transfer O.P No.586/2019 (Annexure A1) from the Family Court, Alappuzha to the Family Court, Mavelikkara.
2. The petitioner's case, in brief, in the memorandum of transfer petition, is that; she is the divorced wife of the respondent. They have two children born in the wed lock. Due to the matrimonial estrangement, the petitioner and the respondent had filed OP(HMA)No.243/2016 before the Family Court, Alappuzha, under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act and their marriage was dissolved on mutual consent. But, the respondent did not return the entire gold ornaments of the petitioner. The respondent has re-married to a lady having two children. The children of the couple are also residing with the respondent. T.R.P(Civil)No.607 of 2021 3 Since the respondent has refused to return the petitioner's gold ornaments, she filed Annexure A1 before the Family Court at Alappuzha. At that time, she was residing in a hostel at Ernakulam. It is to suite her convenience that she chose the Family Court, Alappuzha. The respondent has appeared and has filed his written objection to Annexure A1. The case was listed for trial on 01.11.2021. After the filing of Annexure A1, the petitioner has shifted her residence to Kayamkulam. She is now residing with her ailing mother. There is no person to look after the petitioner's mother. The petitioner is employed as a sales girl at Kayamkulam. Therefore, it will be difficult for her to travel all the way from Kayamkulam to Alappuzha to contest the proceedings. Hence, Annexure A1 may be transferred to the Family Court, Mavelikkara. Hence, the transfer petition.
3. Heard; Sri.Joby Cyriac, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Even though notice has T.R.P(Civil)No.607 of 2021 4 been served on the respondent, there is no appearance for him.
4. The sole point that arises for consideration in this transfer petition is whether Annexure A1 has to be transferred from the Family Court, Alappuzha to the Family Court, Mavelikkara.
5. Admittedly, the petitioner herself filed Annexure A1 before the Family Court, Alappuzha. She chose the court at Alappuzha, since she was then employed in Ernakulam and it was convenient for her to contest the proceedings at Alappuzha. The earlier round of litigation between the petitioner and the respondent was also at Alappuzha.
6. The ground for transfer of Annexure A1 is that, the petitioner has now shifted her residence from Ernakulam to Kayamkulam, to look after her ailing mother. Therefore, Annexure A1 may be transferred from Family Court, Alappuzha to the Family Court, Mavelikkara.
T.R.P(Civil)No.607 of 2021 5
7. Undisputedly, as per Annexure A2 case details produced by the petitioner, Annexure A1 was posted for evidence on 01.11.2021. Thus, it is at this belated stage, that the petitioner has sought for the transfer of Annexure A1. It is also on record that the children born in the marriage are in the custody of the respondent, who is residing at Alappuzha. Furthermore, the Family Courts at Alappuzha and Mavelikkara are not all that far away from Kayamkulam, where the petitioner is presently residing. Also, as the petitioner was appearing before the Family Court, Alappuzha while she was residing in Ernakulam, I do not see any difficulty for the petitioner to appear before the same court from Kayamkulam.
8. This Court in Vidhya Mundekkat v. Akhilesh Jayaram [2021 (6) KHC 506] has
categorically held that there is no invariable rule that, whenever a woman makes a request for transfer of a proceeding, pointing out her inconvenience, the T.R.P(Civil)No.607 of 2021 6 transfer petition needs to be allowed.
On an overall consideration of the pleadings and materials on record, I do not find that the petitioner has made out a ground to persuade me to exercise the discretionary powers of this Court under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, especially when Annexure A1 is at the evidence stage. If at all the petitioner has any difficulty to appear before the Family Court, Alappuzha, on all posting dates, she would be at liberty to move the Family Court and seek for the dispensation of her personal appearance. With the above observations, the transfer petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS Judge NR/24/06/2022 T.R.P(Civil)No.607 of 2021 7 APPENDIX PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF ORIGINAL PETITION IN OP NO. 586/2019 ON THE FILE OF FAMILY COURT, ALAPPUZHA.
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE HISTORY OF PROCEEDINGS OF OP NO. 586/2019 ON THE FILE OF FAMILY COURT, ALAPPUZHA, OBTAINED FROM E- COURTS WEBSITE. Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF RATION CARD NO. 1421066063, RENEWED ON 15.03.2017, ISSUED TO PETITIONER'S MOTHER KAMALAMMA.T.