Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. The common case of the parties in these cases was that in the marital relationship between the petitioner and the respondent in Tr.P.(C).No.298 of 2016 and the petitioner and the first respondent in Tr.P.(C).No.334 of 2016 and Tr.P.(C).No.55 of 2016, the second respondent in Tr.P.(C).No.334 of 2016 and Tr.P. (Crl).No.55 of 2016 was born and they were living together for sometime and thereafter their relationship strained and the wife and the child were residing separately at Kadakkal within the  Tr.P.(C).No.298 of 2016, Tr.P.(C).No.334 of 2016 & jurisdiction of the Family Court, Kottarakkara. The marriage between them was solemnized at Kadakkal and the wife is now residing with the child at Kadakkal. Since the respondent did not pay any maintenance, the wife along with the child filed OP.No.1102/2014 before the Family Court, Kottarakkara for return of gold ornaments and past maintenance and other monetary reliefs. The wife also filed MC.No.5/2016 before the Family Court, Kottarakkara for maintenance of herself and the child under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The respondent entered appearance in that case. Thereafter the husband filed OP(HMA).No.499/2016 before the Family Court, Attingal for dissolution of marriage. The wife filed Tr.P.(C).No.298 of 2016 to transfer that case to the Family Court, Kottarakkara where two other cases filed by her were pending. It is also mentioned in the petition that it will be difficult for her to go to Attingal to conduct the case as she will have to board three buses to reach Attingal, whereas she is having direct convenient bus to go to Kottarakkara from Kadakkal. The husband filed Tr.P.(C).No.334 of 2016 to transfer OP.No.1102/2014 and Tr.P.(Crl).No.55 of 2016 to transfer MC.No.5/2016 both pending before the Family Court, Kottarakkara to the Family Court, Attingal as according to him Attingal will be nearer to both the husband and wife and so that  Tr.P.(C).No.298 of 2016, Tr.P.(C).No.334 of 2016 & both can conveniently go to that court and conduct the cases. With these allegations, the respective parties have filed these petitions for transfer of the cases to the place of their choice as mentioned in these petitions.

7. On the other hand, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that Attingal court is nearer to both the wife and the husband and there are number of buses plying from Kadakkal to Attingal and no hardship will be caused to the wife if the cases are transferred to Attingal court, whereas the husband will have to travel more distance than the wife to reach Kottarakkara and that will cause more hardship to him. The court can take into consideration the convenience of both the parties while considering the question of transfer of cases.

9. It is true by distance wise Attingal is nearer to both the  Tr.P.(C).No.298 of 2016, Tr.P.(C).No.334 of 2016 & husband and the wife and bus service is also available. But it may be mentioned here that earlier petition for return of gold ornaments and maintenance was filed by the wife before the Family Court, Kottarakkara within whose jurisdiction Kadakkal where the wife is now residing is situate and the respondent was conducting the case for more than 1 = years there. It is thereafter that the husband filed OP(HMA).No.499/2016 before the Family Court, Attingal which court is also having jurisdiction to entertain that application as the spouses have last resided together within the jurisdiction of that court. But it may be mentioned here that the respondent is working abroad and he is not in his native place. The petitioner had accustomed to go to Kottarakkara to conduct the case from 2014 onwards. She may be finding it convenient, though distance wise Attingal is nearer, to her to go to Kottarakkara to conduct the case without the hep of anyone. Further, according to the counsel, there is a direct bus available at a particular time, so that she can reach Kottarakkara in time and attend the case whereas though several buses are available, there is no straight bus available at convenient time for the wife to go with the child to Attingal court and she will have to go early morning so as to reach Attingal within time to attend the case, otherwise she will have to board three buses to reach Attingal which will cause  Tr.P.(C).No.298 of 2016, Tr.P.(C).No.334 of 2016 & unnecessary hardship to her.

10. Further, the first case was filed in the year 2014 by the wife against the husband and he had not made any attempt to get that case transferred to Attingal on the ground of convenience of both the parties but he had waited for filing the petition for divorce before the Attingal court and thereafter moved the applications for transfer of cases pending before the Family Court, Kottarakkara to the Family Court, Attingal. So under such circumstances, disturbing the convenience enjoyed by the wife and accustomed the mode of travel which she was enjoying from 2014 onwards to go to Kottarakkara to conduct the case by herself with the child and asking her to go to Attingal to conduct the case which was filed by the husband later will cause unnecessary hardship to her. Further, the maintenance awarded also was not paid, according to the learned counsel for the wife. So under such circumstances, this court feels that the over all circumstances will go to show that it will cause more inconvenience to the wife, if the cases filed by her at the Family Court, Kottarakkara are transferred to the Family Court, Attingal than the hardships that may be caused to the husband.