R. AJITHKUMAR Vs. PRAVEENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition filed seeking review of the impugned order dated 15.1.2018 rendered by this Court on Tr.P(C).No. 512/2016.

(2.) The prayer in Tr.P(C).No.512/2016 is for a direction from this Court to transfer O.P(G&W)No.620/2016 on the file of the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram to the Family Court, Ernakulam. The petitioner in the transfer petition is the wife and the respondent therein is the husband. According to the wife, she is residing at Aluva in Ernakulam district and that she finds it extremely difficult to travel all the way from Ernakulam to attend the proceedings in the Family Court at Thiruvananthapuram in O.P(G&W)No.620/2016. It was after hearing both sides that the impugned order was rendered on 15.1.2018 allowing Tr.P(C).No. 512/2016 in favour of the wife. Now the husband has filed the present Review Petition stating that, as a matter of fact, the averment of the wife that she is actually residing at Aluva in Ernakulam district is factually wrong and that she is actually residing at Thiruvananthapuram and that there is no point in transferring the case from Thiruvananthapuram to Ernakulam. Further it is stated that the version of the wife that she is employed in a wood based industry near Perumbavoor in Ernakulam district as per Anx.A certificate is factually wrong, inasmuch as the proprietor of the said concern, who is stated to have issued Anx.A certificate, has issued letter dated 15.1.2018 informing the petitioner that the wife has never been employed in that firm and that the employment certificate produced by the wife is not one issued by the said employer, etc. Further, the husband would also place reliance on Anx.B FIR in Crime No. 805/2017 of Thiruvananthapuram Cantonment Police Station, wherein the wife is shown as the defacto complainant, in which, she has stated that she is actually residing at Thiruvananthapuram and working there.

(3.) The Review Petition has been admitted by this Court on 22.2.2018, on which day, this Court had also passed orders directing that the operation and implementation of the impugned order dated 15.1.2018 in Tr.P.(C).No. 512/2016 will remain under suspension. The respondent in the R.P./petitioner in the Tr.P(C) (wife), who has entered appearance in person, has submitted that the lawyer who appeared for her in the transfer petition is now out of station and is not in a position to appear on her behalf and that she is not in a financial position to engage yet another lawyer for appearing in this Review Petition and has submitted her version in person.