Ajukumar vs Beena B.L
2021 Latest Caselaw 15561 Ker

  Tr.PC.458/2020                     1

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
                   THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
       FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JULY 2021 / 1ST SRAVANA, 1943
                        TR.P(C) NO. 458 OF 2020
   AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP 420/2020 OF FAMILY COURT,
                           PALAKKAD, PALAKKAD
PETITIONER/S:

            AJUKUMAR,
            AGED 46 YEARS
            S/O.SADASIVAN, RESIDING AT LEKSHMI HOUSE, PERINGAMALA
            KALLIYOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT PIN-695
            020

            BY ADV A.JANI(KOLLAM)



RESPONDENT/S:

            BEENA B.L.,
            AGED 41, D/O.BAHULEYAN, RESIDING AT HAREKRISHNA DHONI
            P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT PIN 678 009 HAVING PERMANENT
            ADDRESS HARE KRISHNA, PUTHNKANAM, KATTACHALKKUZHY,
            BALARAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT PIN 695 501

            BY ADVS.
            SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K.
            SRI.LIJU. M.P




     THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 16.7.21, THE COURT ON 23.07.2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
   Tr.PC.458/2020                          2



                                  V.G.ARUN, J.
                   -----------------------------------------------
                           Tr.P.(C).No. 458 of 2020
                   -----------------------------------------------
                   Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2021

                                     ORDER

The spouses are at loggerheads with each other. The

respondent/wife has initiated legal proceedings by filing M.C.No.97 of

2016 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Neyyattinkara

for maintenance and O.P.Nos.420 and 425 of 2020 before the Family

Court, Palakkad for return of gold ornaments and for divorce

respectively. The respondent/husband who is a permanent resident of

Kalliyyoor in Thiruvananthapuram District, seeks transfer of those

original petitions from the Family Court, Palakkad to the Family Court,

Thiruvananthapuram.

2. It is submitted that the parties had married and last resided

together at Thiruvananathapuram. Much later, the respondent deserted

the petitioner and the two girl children born in the wedlock and started

living with her parents at Palakkad. The permanent residence of the

respondent is at Thiruvananthapuram and her parents are residing at

Palakkad in connection with their employment. As the petitioner has to

look after the children and his ailing mother, it is impossible for him to

contest the cases at Palakkad.

3. The respondent has filed a counter affidavit pointing out that

the petitioner is employed in the Police Department and has no

difficulty in appearing before the Family Court at Palakkad. The

respondent on the other hand is unemployed and has no one to

accompany her to Thiruvananthapuram. She was driven out of the

matrimonial home by the respondent and Annexure A1 FIR, alleging

commission of the offence under Section 498A IPC is registered at her

instance. The respondent apprehends that she will be put to further

harm by the petitioner, if compelled to appear before the Family Court,

Thiruvananthapuram. The allegation that the petitioner's permanent

residence is at Thiruvananthapuram and her parents are temporarily

employed at Palakkad is denied.

4. Having considered the rival submissions, I find the balance of

convenience to be in the respondent's favour. Being an unemployed

woman, it will be difficult for her to travel from Palakkad to

Thiruvananthapuram and to make arrangements for contesting the

cases. On the other hand, the respondent is well employed and can

therefore contest the cases at Palakkad. Moreover, as held by 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 the result, the Transfer petition is dismissed. Personal presence

of the parties before the Family Court, Palakkad shall not be insisted

upon, unless it is absolutely necessary.

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN, JUDGE

vgs

APPENDIX OF TR.P(C) 458/2020

PETITIONER ANNEXURE

ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF FIR NO.SUBMITTED IN C.C.NO.1369 OF 2017 PENDING BEFORE JFMC-III, NEYYATTINKARA

ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF PETITION IN M.C.NO.97 OF 2016 SUBMITTED BY RESPONDENT AGAINST PETITIONER BEFORE JFMC-III, NEYYATTINKARA

ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER TO ANNEXURE A-2 PETITION

ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF OUTPATIENT RECORD AND MEDICAL REPORT ISSUED BY MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM RELATING TO MOTHER OF PETITIONER

ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF O.P.NO.425 OF 2020 PREFERRED BY RESPONDENT AGAINST PETITIONER AT FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD

ANNEXURE A6 TRUE COPY OF O.P.NO.420 OF 2020 PREFERRED BY RESPONDENT AGAINST PETITIONER BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD