DR. GANGA PRASAD Vs. DR. DEEPA HARIDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal filed under Section 5 of the High Court Act, the challenge is against judgment in Tr.P.C No. 424/2016 of the Single Judge. The respondent in O.P No. 779/2016 on the Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor sought for a transfer of the case to the Family Court at Thiruvananthapuram, on the ground that the Family Court, Kottayam has no jurisdiction to entertain the said petition and also on the ground that the pendency of the case at the Family Court, Kottayam will cause serious inconvenience and prejudices to her. The original petition before the Family Court was filed by the appellant herein seeking for restitution of conjugal rights, against the respondent herein. The transfer petition filed by the respondent herein was allowed by the learned Judge stating the reason that the respondent herein is a permanent resident of Thiruvananthapuram and that she may not be in a position to come down to Kottayam, even though she is working at United Kingdom. Learned Judge further observed that, the Family Court at Thiruvananthapuram shall not insist for appearance of the parties, except for the purpose of complying with any statutory formalities or for evidence. The judgment allowing transfer of the said case is challenged in this appeal on various grounds.

(2.) Heard; counsel on either side. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that, the transfer was allowed in a very casual manner, without even considering whether there exists any good and sufficient reasons for transferring the case. It is pointed out that, the respondent herself had admitted in the petition for transfer that the appellant is a person who had undergone a surgery in his brain for removal of 'Dermoid Cyst' and he is taking rest at Kottayam, after the surgery, which was conducted in the United Kingdom. Further, it is pointed out that there is an admission on the part of the respondent herein that she is working at United Kingdom and is residing there; and used to stay at Thiruvananthapuram only occasionally when she is on leave. Therefore it is contended that, the inconvenience expressed by her in attending the Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor, is not a serious one and that the court ought not have allowed the transfer merely by finding that she will be having inconveniences to travel from Thiruvananthapuram to Kottayam in order to attend the case.

(3.) On the otherhand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent contended that, eventhough the respondent is employed at the United Kingdom, she is permanently residing at Thiruvananthapuram. Therefore, in order to attend the court she has to come down to Kottayam, which will cause difficulties.