High CourtsSingle Bench

Preethimol C.S. vs Madusudhanan Nair G.

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 7 January 2013 · Citation: (2013) 01 KL CK 0041

HON’BLE JUDGES
Thomas P. Joseph, J
CASE NUMBER
TR.P (C) . No. 221 of 2012
Ask AI about this case

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

14 paragraphs · 471 words

Thomas P. Joseph, J.—The respondent appears through counsel. This petition is filed by the wife seeking transfer of O.P. (HMA) No. 321 of 2012 from the Family Court, Thiruvalla to the Family Court, Thodupuzha.

2.

O.P.(HMA) No. 321 of 2012 is filed by the respondent-husband for restitution of conjugal rights.

3.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed O.P. No. 520 of 2012 in the Family Court, Thodupuzha for return of gold ornaments. Petitioner is residing at Pannimattom Kara, in Velliyamattom Village. The respondent is a resident of Mallappally Kara, in Pathanamthitta District.

4.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since O.P. No. 520 of 2012 filed by the petitioner is pending in the Family Court, Thodupuzha, convenience of the parties also requires that all the cases are tried and disposed of by the same court.

5.

Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the application contending that the respondent is suffering cervical disk problem and has produced a certificate to that effect.

6.

As submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, so far no request for transfer of O.P. No. 520 of 2012 is made by the respondent.

Moreover, petitioner, aged 33 years is residing at Pannimattom Kara in Velliyamattom Village. She has to travel a long distance to reach the Family Court, Thiruvalla.

7.

The Supreme Court in Sumita Singh Vs. Kumar Sanjay and Another, and Arti Rani @ Pinki Devi and Another Vs. Dharmendra Kumar Gupta, has held that while considering the request for transfer of matrimonial proceedings convenience of the wife has to be looked into. Having regard to the circumstances stated before me I am inclined to think that comparative hardship is more on the petitioner if request for transfer is not allowed. The inconvenience that may be caused to the respondent could be reduced by directing that he could appear in the Family Court, Thodupuzha through counsel except when his physical presence is required. I am inclined to allow the request for transfer.

Resultantly this petition is allowed as follows:

(i) O.P.(HMA) No. 321 of 2012 pending in the Family Court, Thiruvalla is withdrawn from that court and made over to the Family Court, Thodupuzha for trial and disposal.

(ii) The transferor court while transmitting records of the case to the transferee court shall fix the date for appearance of the parties in the transferee court with due intimation to the counsel on both sides.

(iii) The transferee court shall post the cases - O.P.(HMA) No. 321 of 2010 (being transferred to that court) and O.P. No. 520 of 2012 (pending in that court) as far as possible on the same dates.

(iv) Respondent can appear in the transferee court through counsel except when his physical presence is required.

I.A. No. 1180 of 2012 will stand dismissed.