LAWS(KER)-2024-1-117

MUBASSIRA Vs. ABDUL NISHAD

Decided On January 17, 2024
Mubassira Appellant
V/S
Abdul Nishad Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein is the petitioner in O.P. (G&W) No.720/2023 pending before the Family Court, Kozhikode. She seeks the said case to be transferred to the Family Court, Manjeri, Malappuram. The reason stated for the transfer is that the petitioner, due to financial and health constraints, is not in a position to travel to Kozhikode, though the case was originally filed before the Family Court, Kozhikode. It was also pointed out that the distance from the place of residence of the respondent to the Family Court, Malappuram, is only 35 kms, whereas the distance to the Family Court, Kozhikode is 39 kms, wherefore the respondents does not stand to have any inconvenience on account of the transfer sought for.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner invited the attention of this Court to Annexure A2 interlocutory application preferred in O.P.(G&W) No.720/2023 seeking custody of the child, wherein there is a specific pleading in paragraph no.1 to the effect that the G.O.P. preferred before the Family Court, Kozhikode is not maintainable and that the proper Court for filing such G.O.P. is the Family Court, Malappuram. For the above said reasons, the petitioner seeks transfer of the G.O.P.

(3.) This application was seriously opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents. The respondents submitted that the distance from the petitioner's residence to the Family Court, Kozhikode is 38 kms, whereas the distance from her residence to the Family Court, Malappuram is 30kms, wherefore the difference of the distance to the two Courts is minimal. It was also pointed out that going by Sec. 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1980, the jurisdiction for preferring an application under the Act is upon the Court where minor resides. There is no sufficient reason to interfere with such jurisdiction conferred by the Statute. As regards the contention in Annexure A2, learned counsel submitted that the same was made, while answering the claim made by the petitioner herein in the subject interlocutory application.