Kerala High Court
Devika Rani vs P.K.Subhash on 31 August, 2022
TR.P(C) NO. 280 OF 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 9TH BHADRA, 1944
TR.P(C) NO. 280 OF 2022
THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP 1050/2013 OF FAMILY
COURT,TRIVANDRUM
PETITIONER/S:
DEVIKA RANI
AGED 62 YEARS
D/O LATE S.RAMACHANDRAN PILLAI., AGED 62 YEARS,
CHITHRALAYAM,KACHERI ROAD, PUNALUR, PIN - 691305
BY ADVS.
AJAYA KUMAR. G
M.JAYAKRISHNAN
RESPONDENT/S:
P.K.SUBHASH
AGED 64 YEARS
S/O P.KUMARADAS., AGED 64 YEARS, LEKSHMI PRIYA,
T.C. 37/1509(1),PUNNAKKAL ROAD, FORT
P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695023
BY ADVS.
SHAJIN S.HAMEED
U.S.GANESH KUMAR(K/945/1995)
THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 31.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
TR.P(C) NO. 280 OF 2022
2
ORDER
The transfer petition is filed under Sec.24 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, seeking to transfer O.P.
No.1050/2013 (Annexure A1) from the Family Court,
Thiruvananthapuram to the Family Court, Kottarakara.
2. The petitioner's case in brief, in the
memorandum of transfer petition is that, she is the
wife of the respondent. They have two children born in
the wedlock. The respondent has filed Annexure A1,
for a decree that the petitioner is not his legally
wedded wife and also for other ancillary reliefs. The
petitioner has filed a written statement with a counter
claim, inter-alia, to declare that she is the wife of the
respondent and that she has the right to reside in the
counter claim schedule property. But, the counter
claim was dismissed on 07.08.2017. Thereafter,
Annexure A1 was also dismissed. Annexure A1 was
restored to file on 13.09.2018. The petitioner's mother
TR.P(C) NO. 280 OF 2022
is bedridden. The Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram
is situated 68 kilometers away from the residence of
the petitioner. Therefore, it would be difficult for her
to contest Annexure A1 before the Family Court,
Thiruvananthapuram. Hence, the transfer petition.
3. Heard; Sri. Ajaya Kumar, the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Shajin S. Hameed,
the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
4. Admittedly, Annexure A1 was filed as early as
on 10.07.2013. The petitioner herself had filed a
counter claim with a written statement. She has been
contesting Annexure A1 for the last nine years before
the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. It is now,
when the original petition is ripe for trial, that the
petitioner has come up with the plea of inconvenience
to travel from Punalur to Thiruvananthapuram. I do
not find any bonafides in the claim. Moreover, the
respondent is aged 64 years and residing in
TR.P(C) NO. 280 OF 2022
Thiruvananthapuram.
5. The Division Bench of this Court in Vidhya
Mundekkat vs. Akhilesh Jayaram [2021 (6) KHC
506] has categorically held that there is no invariable
rule that, whenever a wife makes a request only for
transfer on the ground of inconvenience, this Court is
obliged to exercise the discretionary powers under
Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Taking into consideration the fact that Annexure
A1 has been pending before the Family Court,
Thiruvananthapuram since 2013 and that the
petitioner herself has subjected to the jurisdiction of
the Court by filing a written statement with a counter
claim and now the suit stands posted for trial, I am not
inclined to exercise the discretionary powers of this
Court under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure
and order the transfer of Annexure A1. However, since
the original petition is of the year 2013, I direct the
TR.P(C) NO. 280 OF 2022
Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram to consider and
dispose of Annexure A1 in accordance with law, as
expeditiously as possible.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
rkc/31.08.22
TR.P(C) NO. 280 OF 2022
APPENDIX OF TR.P(C) 280/2022
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL PETITION IN
O.P. NO. 1050/2013 ON THE FILES OF THE
FAMILY COURT ,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
