Kerala High Court
Vinayaraj N vs Vinayaraj N on 18 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 28TH POUSHA, 1942
Tr.Appeal(C).No.14 OF 2020 IN Tr.P(C). 291/2020
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 1.10.2020 IN Tr.P(C)No.291/2020 OF HIGH
COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:
VINAYARAJ N.,
AGED 50 YEARS
S/O.VELUTHAMBADU, USHA NIVAS, NORTH THRIKARIPUR
VILLAGE, P.O. THRIKARIPUR, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD
DISTRICT
BY ADVS.
SRI.M.V.AMARESAN
SRI.S.S.ARAVIND
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
RAMYA K.V.,
AGED 42 YEARS
D/O.K.V.CHANDRAN, MOON VIHAR, NEAR I.M.U.P. SCHOOL,
IRINAVE, P.O.IRINAVE, KANNUR TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT
THIS TRANSFER APPEAL(CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
18.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Tr.Appeal(C) No.14/2020 2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 18th day of January 2021
Kunhikrishnan, J.
This appeal is filed against the order dated
1.10.2020 in Tr.P.(C) No.291 of 2020. The appeal
is filed by the respondent/husband in the above
transfer petition.
2. The transfer petition was filed by the
wife, who is the respondent in O.P.No.216 of 2020
on the file of the Family Court, Kasaragod. The
appellant filed the above original petition for
dissolution of marriage. The respondent/wife in
O.P.No.216/2020 filed the transfer petition to
transfer the above case from Family Court,
Kasaragod to Family Court Kannur. After hearing
both sides, the learned Single Judge allowed the
transfer petition and transferred the case from
Family Court, Kasaragod to Family Court, Kannur.
Aggrieved by this order, this appeal is filed
appellant/husband.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the
appellant and the learned counsel for the
respondent.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant
submitted that, the learned Single Judge
transferred the case simply because of the reason
that the transfer petition was filed by the wife.
According to the counsel, there is no rule to
transfer a case simply because the wife filed the
transfer petition. The appellant's counsel
submitted that, he is a heart patient and had
undergone a surgery. He can't travel up to Kannur
regularly to contest the case. The counsel also
argued that the respondent/wife is a healthy lady
and also the owner of a car. She can travel in
her car to Kasargod is the contention. The
counsel submitted that the learned single judge
did not consider these contentions of the
appellant. The counsel for the respondent/wife
supported the impugned order.
5. After hearing both sides, we are of the
view that there is nothing to interfere with the
impugned order. The learned Single Judge
considered all the aspects in detail and found
that it is a fit case to be transferred based on
the petition by the respondent/wife. The illness
of the appellant and inconvenience of the
respondent were compared and after analysing it,
the learned single judge decided in favour of the
respondent/wife by allowing the transfer
petition. The learned Single Judge relied the
judgments of the Apex Court as well as this Court
to conclude like that. There is nothing to
interfere with the impugned order because the
appellant has not raised any valid ground to
substantiate his case. Moreover, the appellant is
residing at Thrikaripur. Admittedly the distance
from the house of the appellant to the Family
court Kannur is only about 40 KM. Considering the
entire facts and circumstances, we are of the
definite view that there is nothing to interfere
with the impugned order.
Hence, this Transfer Appeal (Civil) is
dismissed.
Sd/-
A.HARIPRASAD
JUDGE
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
pkk
