Kerala High Court
Renju vs Ajith Gopinath on 24 June, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 3RD ASHADHA, 1944
TR.P(C) NO. 607 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP. NO. 586/2019 OF FAMILY COURT,
ALAPPUZHA
PETITIONER/PETITIONER:
RENJU,
AGED 42 YEARS,
D/O. RAJU,
RAJUBHAVANAM, SOUTH MANKUZHI,
PULLIKKANAKKU P.O.,
KAYAMKULAM -695 304.
BY ADVS.
JOBY CYRIAC
FASNA T.Y
KURIAN K JOSE
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
AJITH GOPINATH,
AGED 50 YEARS
S/O.K. GOPI,
AJIPRIYA, A.N. PURAM WARD,
PAZHAVEED, ALAPPUZHA.
THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 24.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
T.R.P(Civil)No.607 of 2021
2
ORDER
Dated this the 24th day of June, 2022
The transfer petition is filed under Section 24
of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking to transfer O.P
No.586/2019 (Annexure A1) from the Family Court,
Alappuzha to the Family Court, Mavelikkara.
2. The petitioner's case, in brief, in the
memorandum of transfer petition, is that; she is the
divorced wife of the respondent. They have two
children born in the wed lock. Due to the matrimonial
estrangement, the petitioner and the respondent had
filed OP(HMA)No.243/2016 before the Family Court,
Alappuzha, under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage
Act and their marriage was dissolved on mutual
consent. But, the respondent did not return the entire
gold ornaments of the petitioner. The respondent has
re-married to a lady having two children. The children
of the couple are also residing with the respondent.
T.R.P(Civil)No.607 of 2021
Since the respondent has refused to return the
petitioner's gold ornaments, she filed Annexure A1
before the Family Court at Alappuzha. At that time,
she was residing in a hostel at Ernakulam. It is to suite
her convenience that she chose the Family Court,
Alappuzha. The respondent has appeared and has filed
his written objection to Annexure A1. The case was
listed for trial on 01.11.2021. After the filing of
Annexure A1, the petitioner has shifted her residence
to Kayamkulam. She is now residing with her ailing
mother. There is no person to look after the
petitioner's mother. The petitioner is employed as a
sales girl at Kayamkulam. Therefore, it will be difficult
for her to travel all the way from Kayamkulam to
Alappuzha to contest the proceedings. Hence,
Annexure A1 may be transferred to the Family Court,
Mavelikkara. Hence, the transfer petition.
3. Heard; Sri.Joby Cyriac, the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner. Even though notice has
T.R.P(Civil)No.607 of 2021
been served on the respondent, there is no appearance
for him.
4. The sole point that arises for consideration in
this transfer petition is whether Annexure A1 has to be
transferred from the Family Court, Alappuzha to the
Family Court, Mavelikkara.
5. Admittedly, the petitioner herself filed
Annexure A1 before the Family Court, Alappuzha. She
chose the court at Alappuzha, since she was then
employed in Ernakulam and it was convenient for her
to contest the proceedings at Alappuzha. The earlier
round of litigation between the petitioner and the
respondent was also at Alappuzha.
6. The ground for transfer of Annexure A1 is
that, the petitioner has now shifted her residence from
Ernakulam to Kayamkulam, to look after her ailing
mother. Therefore, Annexure A1 may be transferred
from Family Court, Alappuzha to the Family Court,
Mavelikkara.
T.R.P(Civil)No.607 of 2021
7. Undisputedly, as per Annexure A2 case details
produced by the petitioner, Annexure A1 was posted
for evidence on 01.11.2021. Thus, it is at this belated
stage, that the petitioner has sought for the transfer of
Annexure A1. It is also on record that the children born
in the marriage are in the custody of the respondent,
who is residing at Alappuzha. Furthermore, the Family
Courts at Alappuzha and Mavelikkara are not all that
far away from Kayamkulam, where the petitioner is
presently residing. Also, as the petitioner was
appearing before the Family Court, Alappuzha while
she was residing in Ernakulam, I do not see any
difficulty for the petitioner to appear before the same
court from Kayamkulam.
8. This Court in Vidhya Mundekkat v.
Akhilesh Jayaram [2021 (6) KHC 506] has
categorically held that there is no invariable rule that,
whenever a woman makes a request for transfer of a
proceeding, pointing out her inconvenience, the
T.R.P(Civil)No.607 of 2021
transfer petition needs to be allowed.
On an overall consideration of the pleadings
and materials on record, I do not find that the
petitioner has made out a ground to persuade me to
exercise the discretionary powers of this Court under
Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, especially
when Annexure A1 is at the evidence stage. If at all
the petitioner has any difficulty to appear before the
Family Court, Alappuzha, on all posting dates, she
would be at liberty to move the Family Court and seek
for the dispensation of her personal appearance. With
the above observations, the transfer petition is
dismissed.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS
Judge
NR/24/06/2022
T.R.P(Civil)No.607 of 2021
APPENDIX
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF ORIGINAL
PETITION IN OP NO. 586/2019 ON THE FILE OF
FAMILY COURT, ALAPPUZHA.
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE HISTORY OF PROCEEDINGS OF OP
NO. 586/2019 ON THE FILE OF FAMILY COURT,
ALAPPUZHA, OBTAINED FROM E- COURTS WEBSITE.
Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF RATION CARD NO. 1421066063,
RENEWED ON 15.03.2017, ISSUED TO PETITIONER'S
MOTHER KAMALAMMA.T.
