DRISHYA S KRISHNAN Vs. RAJESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Dated this the 17th day of January, 2024 Petitioner seeks transfer of O.P.(Div)No.3178/2022 pending before the Family Court, Thiruvanthapuram, to the Family Court, Mavelikkara. Transfer is sought for on the ground of convenience of the petitioner/wife, she having her place of residence within the jurisdictional limits of Family Court, Mavelikkara.

(2.) This application was seriously opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent, who had filed a counter affidavit, along with documents. It was pointed out that the respondent/husband is abroad and he is represented by his father, who is his power of attorney holder. Pursuant to an accident, the power of attorney holder/father is not in a position to move around, since there is a fracture. According to the learned counsel, the respondent has no faith in any one, other than his father, since the issue being personal in nature.

(3.) Having heard the learned counsel appearing on both sides, this Court is inclined to allow the instant transfer sought for. It is settled by a catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, including the one in N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha [AIR 2022 SC 4318], that the convenience of the wife is certainly a matter to be taken into consideration while fixing the forum for adjudication in matrimonial disputes. In the instant case, the wife/petitioner is residing within the jurisdictional limits of the Family Court, Mavelikkara. If the present power of attorney holder of the respondent/husband is not in a position to move around and take care of the interest of the respondent, it is for the respondent to make alternate arrangements. At any rate, the same cannot be propounded as a reason to oppose the transfer sought for, which is otherwise well conceived.