LAWS(KER)-1984-7-48

PAPPAMMAL Vs. BHAGAVATHY APPAN

Decided On July 09, 1984
PAPPAMMAL Appellant
V/S
BHAGAVATHY APPAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under S.24, CPC., and S.21 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for a transfer of a petition O. P. (HMA.) 247 of 1983 pending before the Sub Court, Trivandrum, to the Sub Court, Palghat, where a petition O. P. (HMA ) 47 of 1983 is pending.

(2.) THE parties to the litigation got married on 15-11-1975. THEir marriage life, however, does not appear to have been very happy. It is not necessary to go into the details of the rival contentions in the two petitions, one at the instance of the wife and the other at the instance of the husband. It is sufficient to note that the wife had filed a petition, one for restitution of conjugal rights before the Sub Court, Palghat, earlier, namely 20-6-1983. THE husband entered appearance in that court, but repudiated the liability to reside with the wife. THE husband's petition was for divorce on the ground of insanity of the wife. That was filed before the Sub Court. Trivandrum, on 15-9-1983, three months after the wife's petition.

(3.) IT is not necessary to go into the correctness or otherwise of the allegations made and repelled by either side. The power under S.24 and S.21 has to be exercised on a consideration of all relevant aspects. In considering this question of transfer, the general disadvantageous situation of a wife cannot be overlooked. IT is more so in the present case, where, the wife is, according to her husband mentally infirm. Even if she does not have any such infirmity, in the present situation, she has necessarily to depend upon her mother as the only help. Even a travel from Palghat to Trivandrum, in her case, would be very difficult and tedious. On the other hand if the husband has attended to the Palghat Court in connection with the legal proceedings there, it may not create acute difficulty. IT may only be a case of some inconvenience and not one of virtual impossibility as in the case of the wife. These facts would justify the transfer of the case pending in the Court at Trivandrum to the Sub Court at Palghat.