Lijio. J vs Biju N. G

The petitioner is the wife and the respondent is the husband.

The respondent has filed O.P.(Div.) No. 225/2018 in the Family Court, Thiruvalla against the petitioner for granting a decree of divorce. The petitioner has filed O.P.No. 1178/2019 in the Family Court, Mavelikkara for granting a decree for return of gold ornaments and money from the respondent.

The prayer in this application is to transfer the case O.P.No.225/2018 from the Family Court, Thiruvalla to the Family Court, Mavelikkara.

It is stated in the petition that the petitioner has got no job and she is solely depending on her parents for her livelihood. The respondent is said to be employed abroad. It is also stated that the petitioner is not in a position to travel from her residence in Mavelikkara to the Family Court, Thiruvalla without the help of her parents and to conduct the proceedings in the case pending against her in the Family Court, Thiruvalla. Therefore, the petitioner has prayed that the case O.P.No. 225/2018 may be transferred from the Family Court, Thiruvalla to the Family Court, Mavelikkara.

When the transfer petition was admitted, notice was ordered to be issued to the respondent by speed post. The petitioner was also directed to serve notice on the counsel appearing for the respondent in the court below and file a memo to that effect. The notice sent to the respondent by speed post is returned with the endorsement "addressee left India". The petitioner has filed an affidavit to the effect that though attempt was made to serve the notice of the transfer petition to the counsel appearing for the respondent in the court below, the advocate who was present in the office of the counsel appearing for the respondent, refused to accept the notice. In these circumstances, notice is deemed to be served on the respondent.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

In matrimonial matters, while considering application for transfer of case from one court to another, convenience of the wife is to be preferred to the convenience of the husband [Rajani Kishor v. Kishor Babulal : (2005) 12 SCC 237, Sumita Singh v. Kumar Sanjay : AIR 2002 SC 396 and Rajwinder Kaur v. Balwinder Singh : (2003) 11 SCC 726]. Comparative hardship to the parties requires consideration by the court in ordering transfer of a matrimonial case [Vaishali Shridhar Jagtap v. Shridhar Vishwanath Jagtap : AIR 2016 SC 3584] . Financial stringency of the wife and her inability to meet the expenses of travel to a court at a distant place are also matters to be considered [Mona Aresh Goel v. Aresh Satya Goel: (2000) 9 SCC 255].

It is stated in the petition that the petitioner has got no job and she is solely depending on her parents for her livelihood and she could not undertake the journey from Mavelikkara to Thiruvalla without the help of her parents. In these circumstances, it is only proper to transfer the case pending in the Family Court Thiruvalla to the Family Court, Mavelikkara.

Consequently, the petition is allowed. The case O.P.(Div.) No. 225/2018 pending in the Family Court, Thiruvalla is transferred to the Family Court, Mavelikkara. The Judge, Family Court, Thiruvalla shall transmit the records of the case to the Family Court, Mavelikkara, after fixing a date for appearance of the parties before the Family Court, Mavelikkara and giving due intimation to counsel for both parties regarding it.