Kerala High Court
M.K.Ratheesh vs Sruthi.P on 11 August, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.R.ANITHA
WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 20TH SRAVANA, 1943
TR.P(C) NO. 363 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP 100/2019 OF FAMILY COURT,KOLLAM,
PETITIONER
M.K.RATHEESH
AGED 40 YEARS
S/O.M.K. THAMBAN, THARAVILLA HOUSE, KARAKKAD P.O,
CHENGANNUR-689504.
BY ADV THOMAS J.ANAKKALLUNKAL
RESPONDENT
SRUTHI.P
AGED 35 YEARS, D/O. PURANDARAM, ANUSHKA BHAVAN, 207(A),
KONGAL, OPPOSITE THAYIL TEMPLE, PARAVOOR, KOLLAM-691301.
BY ADV SRI.M.R.SASITH
THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 11.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
Tr.P.(C).363 of 2019
2
M.R. Anitha, J.
---------------------
Tr.P.(C).363 of 2019
----------------------------
Dated : 11th August, 2021
ORDER
1. This Transfer Petition has been filed by the
respondent in O.P.100/2019 pending before the Family
Court, Kollam, which was filed by his wife seeking
for return of gold ornaments and money. Their
marriage was solemnized on 6.9.2007 at Varkala
Sivagiri Madom. Petitioner had been working in Indian
Military at the time of marriage. After the marriage
they shifted their residence to Pangode military
quarters and stayed there for two years. A girl child
was born in their wedlock.
2. The respondent wife was always following the
instructions of her mother and never cared the
petitioner husband. After retirement, petitioner
purchased a house at Paravur, Kollam utilising his
retirement benefits and was living happily in the new
Tr.P.(C).363 of 2019
house. According to him, the whole problem in their
marital life is being created by the mother-in-law.
Ultimately he started residing separately with his
parents at Chenganoor and respondent wife is
continuing her residence in the house owned by the
petitioner at Paravur. The petitioner obtained a job
as Driver at SM Vidya Peedam Kotta, Chenganoor. The
respondent in the meantime filed O.P.No. 100/2019,
copy of which is produced as Annexure-1. His duty
hours is 7.00 am to 9.30 am and 2.30 pm to 5.30 pm.
It is difficult for him to appear at Family Court,
Kollam because petitioner is picking up and dropping
62 school children. Hence the Transfer petition has
been filed seeking for transfer.
3. Notice was issued to the respondent and respondent
appeared through counsel and both sides were heard.
4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner
since he has got a job in School at Chengannor and
has to pick up 62 children and drop at School and
again back to their homes and the time schedule is
Tr.P.(C).363 of 2019
7.00 am to 9.30 am and 2.30 pm to 5.30 pm, it is very
difficult for him to appear before the Family Court
Kollam. Hence he seeks for transfer of O.P.No.
100/2019 filed by the respondent wife to Family Court
Mavelikakra. According to him, no prejudice will be
caused to her if it is transferred to Family Court,
Mavelikkara.
5. According to the learned counsel for the respondent,
respondent is living with a child at Paravur and the
petition filed by her under the provisions of
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 1985
is pending before the Munsiff Magistrate Court,
Paravur. It is also her contention that there is a
distance of 64 Kms from Paravur to Mavelikkara and
there is nobody to accompany her to Mavelikkara if
the case is transferred to Mavelikkara. Hence the
respondent strongly objects for transfer of O.P.No.
100/2019 from Family Court, Kollam to Family Court,
Mavelikkara.
6. It has come out from the rival contentions that the
Tr.P.(C).363 of 2019
relationship between the petitioner and respondent
has been strained and already two cases have been
filed by the respondent against the petitioner. The
proceedings under the Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 1985 is pending before the
Munsiff Magistrate Court Paravur and the OP for
return of gold ornaments is pending before the Family
Court Kollam. Admittedly, respondent wife is living
with her daughter. It is also her grievance that she
has to travel 64 Kms from Paravur to Mavelikara if
the case is transferred to Family Court, Mavelikkara.
7. In Vaishali Shridhar Jagtap v. Shridhar Vishwanath
Jagtap (AIR 2016 SC 3584) while dealing with a case
of transfer filed by the wife against the husband it
has been held that comparative hardship is to be
considered while considering transfer and transfer
was allowed in that case taking into account the fact
that the hardship is more to the appellant/wife.
8. In Sumita Singh v. Kumar Sanjay and another ( (2001)
10 SCC 41), while dealing with Section 24 of the Code
Tr.P.(C).363 of 2019
of Civil Procedure, 1908 it has been held in a case
filed by the husband against the wife that
convenience of the wife must be looked at first.
9. In the present case, though the case has been filed
by the respondent/wife against the husband,
admittedly she is residing at Paravur along with
child and the distance from Paravur to Mavelikkara,
where the petitioner seeks to transfer the case is 64
Kms. So the comparative hardship will be more to the
respondent wife than to the husband if the case is
transferred from Kollam to Mavelikkara.
10. In view of the settled position in law,
convenience of the wife has to be given more
preference. Apart from the fact that the petitioner
is working as driver at Chenganoor, the learned
counsel for the petitioner could not bring out any
exceptional circumstances for seeking transfer of the
case from Family Court, Kollam to Family Court,
Mavelikkara.
11. In the above backdrop, I do not find any
Tr.P.(C).363 of 2019
justifiable reason to transfer O.P.100/2019 from
Family Court, Kollam to Family Court, Mavelikkara.
12. In the result, Transfer Petition is found to be
devoid of any merit and hence dismissed. There is no
order as to costs.
Sd/-
M.R.Anitha, Judge
Mrcs/11.8.
