Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 14477 Ker
Judgement Date : 13 July, 2021
TR.P(C) NO. 514 OF 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 22ND ASHADHA, 1943
TR.P(C) NO. 514 OF 2020
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP 749/2020 OF FAMILY COURT, IRINJALAKUDA,
THRISSUR
PETITIONER/RESPONDENT IN O.P:
KESNA KHADER
AGED 26 YEARS
D/O. KHADER, PALLITTODUNGAL HOUSE, NATTIKA VILLAGE,
VALAPPADU DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR P. O. - 680 567.
BY ADVS.
E.ADITHYAN
SMT.MEERA RAMESH
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN O.P:
SURAJ SETHU MOHAMMED
AGED 31 YEARS
S/O. SETHU MOHAMMED, KOTTAYIPARAMBIL HOUSE, VELLANGALLUR
DESOM, THRISSUR P. O. - 680 662.
BY ADVS.
SMT.M.SHAJNA
SRI.K.M.FIROZ
THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
13.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
TR.P(C) NO. 514 OF 2020
2
ORDER
Dated this the 13th day of July 2021
The matrimonial discord amongst the
petitioner/wife and the respondent/husband has
resulted in the petitioner filing O.P.No.357 of 2020
for damages and O.P.No.358 of 2020 for dissolution
of marriage before the Family Court, Thrissur. On
the other hand, the respondent has filed O.P.No.749
of 2020 before the Family Court, Irinjalakuda seeking
restitution of conjugal rights. The prayer in this
petition is to transfer O.P.No.749 of 2020 from the
Family Court, Irinjalakuda to the Family Court,
Thrissur.
2. It is submitted that the petitioner is a
permanent resident of Nattika Village, which is within
the jurisdictional limits of Family Court, Thrissur.
3. The transfer is opposed by the respondent
stating that the petitioner is working at the Apollo TR.P(C) NO. 514 OF 2020
Adlux Hospital, Angamaly which is near to the Family
Court, Irinjalakuda. It is pointed out that the
respondent is residing at Pulloot and will have to
travel more than 50.kms. to reach the Family Court,
Thrissur. On the other hand, from Valappad, the
petitioner will have to travel only 20.k.ms. to reach
the Family Court, Irinjalakuda. The further case is
that the respondent's parents are aged and ailing
and require his constant care and attention.
4. The petitioner as well as the respondent has
moved the respective Family Courts for dissolution of
marriage. Being so, it is essential that both cases
are considered by the same court so as to avoid
multiplicity of proceedings and divergent decisions.
Hence, the question is whether the case filed by the
respondent should be transferred to the Family court
where the case filed by the petitioner is pending. In
this regard, it is pertinent to note that the
Honourable Supreme Court has in Sumita Singh v
Kumar Sanjay and another [(2001) 10 SCC 41], and TR.P(C) NO. 514 OF 2020
a plethora of other decisions, in transfer petitions
arising from matrimonial cases, convenience of the
petitioner/wife should be preferred over that of the
husband.
5. In Leena Mukhargee v. Rabi Shanker [2002
(10 SCC 480], the Apex Court has held that the
wife's lack of companion to travel with, to be an
appropriate reason for transfer. In the light of the
above precedents, I am inclined to allow the request
for transfer.
In the result, the Tr.P.C No.514 of 2020 is
allowed. O.P.No.749/2020 on the files of the Family
Court, Irinjalakuda shall forthwith be transferred to
the Family Court, Thrissur.
Sd/-
V.G.ARUN
JUDGE NB/13.7.21 TR.P(C) NO. 514 OF 2020
APPENDIX OF TR.P(C) 514/2020
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURE
ANNEXURE 1 TRUE COPY OF O.P.NO.357/2020 OF THE FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR.
ANNEXURE 2 TRUE COPY OF O.P.NO.358/2020 OF THE FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR.
ANNEXURE 3 TRUE COPY OF O.P.NO.749/2020 OF THE FAMILY COURT, IRINJALAKUDA.
RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURE: NIL
True Copy P.A to Judge
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!