CHAITHANYA Vs. BIJIN RAVEENDRAN,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The main prayer in this Transfer Petition (Civil) filed under section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure is as follows :

(2.) Heard Sri.M.B. Sandeep, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner(wife) and Sri.B.S. Swathy Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent(husband). The petitioner is the wife of the respondent herein. Matrimonial disputes have led to the litigative proceedings between the parties. The respondent husband has filed Annexure A1 OP(HMA) No.484/2017 on the file of the Family Court, Attingal seeking divorce. The respondent husband has also filed Annexure A2 guaridanship OP, OP No.126/2017 before the Family Court, Thodupuzha, as the child was residing with the territorial limits of that court at Thodupuzha. The prayer for transfer of these cases is opposed by the respondent.

(3.) It is now submitted by both sides that the petitioner (wife) and respondent (husband) are now working in Canada and the child is in Thodupuzha and further that both parties are now represented through the respective power of attorney holders. It is pointed out by the 1st respondent that thus it practically makes no difference whether the litigation is at Attingal or at Thodupuzha, as far as the individual conveniences and inconveniences of both the petitioner and the respondent are concerned. Further that the respondent's power of attorney holder(mother) is above 60 years and she would find it extremely difficult to travel all the way from Attingal to Thodupuzha, if the plea for transfer is allowed.