Partly allowed

Pooja v. Praveen

Kerala HC10 Jul 2008Tr.P(C)/105/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismisses an amendment application in a transfer petition filed by the wife in a Family Court case for dissolution of marriage. The court granted the transfer from Thrissur to Ernakulam, prioritizing the wife's difficulties regarding travel with a two-year-old child and her parents' ailment, distinguishing a prior Supreme Court case where transfer was denied because the husband offer

What did the court decide?

The amendment application was dismissed, and the original transfer petition was allowed; the case filed at Family Court, Thrissur was withdrawn and transferred to Family Court, Ernakulam.

Pooja Vs Praveen — Matrimonial and Divorce | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 10TH JULY 2008 / 19TH ASHADHA 1930

¶5

Tr.P(C).No. 105 of 2008() ------------------------OP.1533/2007 of FAMILY COURT,THRISSUR ....................

¶6

PETITIONER : -----------------

¶7

MRS.POOJA, AGED 24, D/O.VALSALAN, LITTLE CANNATTU VETTIL, NORTH PARUR DESOM, NORTH PARUR VILLAGE, PARUR TALUK.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.P.N.RAMAKRISHNAN NAIR SRI.P.VISWANATHAN

¶9

RESPONDENT: -------------

¶10

SRI.PRAVEEN, AGED 31, S/O.RAMANKUTTY MENON, THYLOTH, THEKKUMMURI DESOM, PUTHANCHIRA VILLAGE.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.T.N.MANOJ FOR R1

¶12

THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

ORDER ON I.A.NO.1162/2008 IN Tr.P(C) No.105/2008

¶14

10.7.08 Dismissed Sd/- M.Sasidharan Nambiar Judge

¶15

/true copy/

¶16

P.S to Judge

¶17

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.

¶18

===========================

¶19

Tr.P.(C) NO. 105 OF 2008 ===========================

¶20

Dated this the 10th day of July, 2008

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Petitioner is the wife and respondent the

¶23

husband. Respondent filed O.P.1533/2007 before Family Court, Thrissur for dissolution of the marriage. This petition is filed by the wife to

¶24

transfer that case to Ernakulam contending that she

¶25

is having a two years old child and it is not

¶26

possible for her to travel with the child. It was

¶27

also contended that her parents are ailing and in such circumstance the case may be transferred to Ernakulam. Respondent vehemently opposed the

¶28

application. It was contended that petitioner had travelled to Thrissur and attended the court thrice

¶29

and what now remains is only recording of evidence

¶30

and in such circumstance, there is no necessity to

¶31

order transfer. It was also argued that there is

¶32

no evidence to prove that parents of the petitioner are suffering from ailments and in such

¶33

Tr.P(C) 105/08

¶34

¶35

circumstance the case cannot be transferred. Relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Anindita Das v. Srijit Das (2006) 9 SCC 197) it was argued that preference cannot be given to the difficulties expressed by the women and each case is to be decided on its own merit.

¶36

On hearing the counsel on both sides, I

¶37

feel that the difficulties expressed by the wife is necessarily to be given preference. What is stated

¶38

by the Apex Court in Anindita's case(supra) was only that women are taking advantage of the leniency shown by the court about travelling in matrimonial cases. It does not lay down a law that preference cannot be given to the difficulties expressed by the wife. In that case wife was having six year old child and it was contended that

¶39

wife has no income to meet the expenses for travel. The Apex Court found that husband

¶40

offered to pay the entire expenses for her travel

¶41

as well as her stay for each visit to attend the court. It is in such circumstance it was held that

¶42

Tr.P(C) 105/08

¶43

¶44

on the request of the wife alone, the case cannot

¶45

be transferred.

¶46

In this case though petitioner did not

¶47

produce document it is pleaded that she has a two year child and it is difficult to travel to Thrissur. It was also contended that her parents are ailing an cannot accompanying her in her travel. In such circumstance, petition is allowed. O.P.1533/2007 on the file of Family Court, Thrissur

¶48

is withdrawn and transferred to Family Court,

¶49

Ernakulam for disposal in accordance with law.

¶50

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶51

tpl/-

¶52

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.

¶53

--------------------W.P.(C).NO. /06

¶54

JUDGMENT

¶55

SEPTEMBER,2006

Pooja v. Praveen

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pooja v. Praveen

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sree Ganesh Chitts & Bankers, Vs M/S. Light Point

T.K.Kunjumon Vs Little Flower Kuries and Enterprises Ltd.

Cherusseri Sainudheen Musaliyar Vs Palliyali Kunhi Muhammed Kutty Alias

K.Narayana Pillai Vs M.R.Suresh

State of Kerala Vs Annakkutty Varkey

Sajithkumar.a. Vs Radhika G.R.