DIVYA NAIR Vs. NITIN RADHAKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the wife of the respondent. THE marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 30.12.2007 at Palakkad.

(2.) THE petitioner as well as the respondent belong to Palakkad District. THE petitioner belongs to Puthur in Palakkad District. THE respondent belongs to Yakkara in Palakkad District. According to the petitioner, due to the various events which took place, the parties started living separately from June 2010 onwards. THE petitioner is now residing with her parents at Nagpur, Maharashtra. THE respondent is residing in an apartment at Kozhikode.

(3.) THE application for transfer is hotly contested by the respondent. It is submitted that the Transfer Petition is filed with malicious intention. THE Family Court, Kozhikode overruled the objection raised by the petitioner herein that the said Family Court has no territorial jurisdiction. However, that fact is suppressed in the Transfer Petition and it is again contended that the Family Court, Palakkad alone has jurisdiction. It is contended that counselling was over and the case is ready for trial. At that stage, the Transfer Petition is filed without any bonafides. It is contended that the father of the petitioner is a highly influential businessman and he is a member of the National Executive of a political party. He has great influence in the area. THErefore, the respondent is afraid to go to Palakkad and attend the Family Court, Palakkad. In these circumstances, he preferred the petition before the Family Court, Kozhikode. It would be difficult for the respondent/husband to appear before the Family Court, Palakkad in the peculiar circumstances of the case and because of the political influence of the father of the petitioner. THE respondent/husband also submitted that his father filed a suit against him and obtained an order of injunction restraining him from entering into the house of his father. THErefore, he is not in a position to go to Palakkad, stay there and attend the Family Court, Palakkad. It is pointed out by the counsel for the respondent that there is no averment in the Transfer Petition that the petitioner/wife was threatened or coerced when she appeared before the Family Court, Kozhikode. It is also stated in the counter affidavit thus: