T M REMANI Vs. DAYANANDAN N V

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the wife and respondent, husband. M.OP No.161 of 2004 was filed by respondent for restitution of conjugal rights before Sub Court, Palakkad. According to learned counsel appearing for petitioner and respondent, the case is even now pending before Sub Court, Palakkad, even though a Family Court was constituted at Palakkad in which case Sub Court, Palakkad has no jurisdiction to entertain the O.P. This petition is filed by the wife to transfer that case to Family Court, Kozhikode. The case of the petitioner is that she, along with her child filed M.C.461 of 2002 before Family Court, Kozhikode claiming maintenance and Family Court has already granted maintenance and execution petition is pending there and it is not possible for her to travel to Palakkad and contest the case. Respondent filed a counter contending that he is under treatment of Dr.Jayaraj and was advised not to travel and therefore it is not possible for him to travel to Kozhikode and therefore the case cannot be transferred.

(1.) The question is whether it is the convenience of the wife or the husband that is to be considered. When the petitioner is having a minor child and she is residing at Kozhikode and a petition for maintenance was filed before the Family Court, Kozhikode and execution proceedings is still pending there, it is in the interests of justice to transfer M.OP 161 of 2004 to Family Court, Kozhikode.

(3.) This petition is allowed. M.OP 161 of 2004 on the file of Sub Court, Palakkad is withdrawn and transferred to Family Court, Kozhikode for disposal in accordance with law.