Kerala High Court
Rajamma A.S vs P.A.Anilkumar on 5 April, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL 2022 / 15TH CHAITHRA, 1944
TR.P(C) NO. 412 OF 2021
(FOR TRANSFERRING O.P NO.633/2021 AND O.P (HMA) NO.732/2021
FROM HON'BLE FAMILY COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA TO HON'BLE FAMILY
COURT, PALAKKAD)
PETITIONER/RESPONDENT NO.1/RESPONDENT NO.1:
RAJAMMA A.S,
AGED 47 YEARS,
W/O SYAMKUMAR @ ANILKUMAR S.S, PAMPOORETHU VEEDU,
MATHOOR P.O, CHENNEERKKARA VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY
TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PRESENTLY RESIDING
AT PRATHEEKSHA HOUSE, KUMBIDI P.O, UMMATHOOR KARA,
AANAKKARA VILLAGE, PATTAMPI TALUK, PALAKKAD
DISTRICT-679 533.
BY ADVS.
S.SHANAVAS KHAN
S.INDU
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER/RESPONDENT NO.2:
1 P.A ANILKUMAR,
AGED 46 YEARS,
S/O C.K. ACHUTHAN NAIR, PAMPOORETHU VEEDU,
MATHOOR P.O, CHENNEERKKARA VILLAGE,
KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689
647.
2 SYAMKUMAR @ ANILKUMAR S.S,
AGED 46 YEARS,
S/O SASI, PRATHEEKSHA HOUSE, KUMBIDI P.O,
UMMATHOOR KARA, AANAKKARA VILLAGE,
PATTAMPI TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-679 533.
BY ADV V.SETHUNATH
THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
30.03.2022, THE COURT ON 05.04.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Tr.P.C.No.412/2021 2
A. BADHARUDEEN, J.
================================
Tr.P.(C) No.412 of 2021
================================
Dated this the 5th day of April, 2022
JUDGMENT
This application is filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil
Procedure by the petitioner, who is the wife of the 1 st respondent,
seeking transfer of O.P.No.633 of 2021 and O.P(HMA).No.732 of
2021, pending before the Family Court, Pathanamthitta, to Family
Court, Palakkad.
2. Heard both sides.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued at length to
convince this Court that the petitioner, who was deserted by the 1 st
respondent, is now residing in the address shown in the petition,
within the jurisdiction of the Family Court, Palakkad and,
therefore, considering the convenience of the wife, the transfer
sought for is to be allowed.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent
would submit that the petitioner, who is the wife of the 1 st
respondent, lived along with the 1st respondent and 2 children born
out of the said relationship, even described her as the wife of one
Syamkumar @ Anilkumar S.S, after maintaining an unfair
relationship with the said person, who is the 2 nd respondent in
O.P.No.633/2021. It is submitted further that since the petitioner
eloped with the above said Syamkumar @ Anilkumar, the
petitioner deserted the 1st respondent, leaving the responsibility of
looking after the affairs of the 2 children. It is submitted that the 1 st
respondent took the responsibility with all bona fides and he has
been struggling hard to maintain himself and the children as a bona
fide father. In such a situation, if the above cases are transferred as
sought for by the petitioner, the same would be hazardous to the 1 st
respondent and the children, who are living along with him.
5. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that the 1st respondent is not the husband of the petitioner, a perusal
of the petitions filed before the Family Court would indicate that
they are parties to a marriage and the relationship is not otherwise.
In view of the matter, submission made by the learned counsel for
the 1st respondent is having force.
6. It is true that in matters of matrimonial dispute, the
convenience of wife is having predominance in ordinary
circumstances. But the said principle is not so rigid to be applied
in every case ignoring the particular circumstances prevailing in the
case. Therefore, deviation from the said rule is legally permissible
to deal with this matter, where such a principle as such cannot be
followed, in view of the particular circumstances of the case.
7. Here, prima facie, it appears that now the petitioner is
living wih another man at Palakkad and the 1 st respondent has been
residing within the jurisdiction of the Family Court,
Pathanamthitta, along with his 2 children, after maintaining them as
a duty bound father with bona fides, after doing job within its
vicinity. Therefore, by transferring these 2 cases, taking note of the
convenience of the wife, would be doing injustice to the 1 st
respondent and the children, who have been residing along with
him.
In view of the matter, I am not inclined to allow the transfer
sought for in this petition. Accordingly, the Transfer Petition
stands dismissed.
Sd/-
(A. BADHARUDEEN, JUDGE)
rtr/
APPENDIX OF TR.P(C) 412/2021
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES
Annexure A TRUE COPY OF O.P.NO. 633/2021 FILED BY
THE FIRST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE HON'BLE
FAMILY COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA ALONG WITH
NOTICE FOR APPEARANCE.
Annexure B TRUE COPY OF O.P.(HMA) NO. 732/2021
FILED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE
HON'BLE FAMILY COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA
ALONG WITH NOTICE FOR APPEARANCE.
