AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
17 paragraphs · 349 wordsV.G.Arun, J
The marital disharmony among the spouses has resulted in the respondent/wife filing O.P.Nos.420 and 427 of 2017 before the Family Court,
Mavelikkara for divorce and for return of gold ornaments respectively. The petitioner, who is a permanent resident of Ezhupunna in Alappuzha
District seeks transfer of those cases to the Family Court, Alappuzha. The reason being that, consequent to injuries sustained by him in a road traffic
accident, the petitioner is having 40% permanent disability and is unable to travel long distances.
The respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that she was driven out of the marital home by the petitioner and therefore, forced to reside with
her parents. It is submitted that the petitioner has no difficulty in travelling and he is presently working as 'Santhi' in a temple. The respondent has no
income of her own, her mother died two months back after prolonged treatment and her father is a cardiac patient. Hence, transfer of the case will be
more prejudicial to the respondent than the petitioner.
It is true that the petitioner is having 40% disability. At the same time, the fact that the respondent is unemployed and has to attend her ailing father
is also to be taken into consideration. It is settled law that the petitioner in a case is the dominus litis and transfer at the instance of the opposite party
should not be ordered in the absence of cogent and convincing reasons. Here, the contention of the respondent that the petitioner is working as a
Santhi in a temple has not been controverted. In such circumstances, I find it difficult to accept the contention that the petitioner cannot travel from
Ezhupunna to Mavelikkara. 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 petitions are dismissed.