This is a petition filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking transfer of O.P. 1584 of 2013 pending before the Family Court, Kollam to the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram.
2. Suffice to say, the relationship between the petitioner and the respondent ran into rough weather and litigations began. The petitioner points out that she had gone to U.K. in March, 2012 for doing MBA. At that time, the children were forcibly taken away by the respondent. The respondent is thereafter alleged to have filed W.P.(Crl.) No. 233 of 2012 seeking writ of habeous corpus alleging that the petitioner was in the illegal custody of her parents. That writ petition was dismissed by order dated 30.5.2012. Soon after she came back to India, the respondent filed O.P. 12374 of 2012, renumbered as O.P. 771 of 2013, before the Family Court, Kollam for restitution of conjugal rights, which was later withdrawn based on a settlement arrived at between the parties. The settlement did not work out and the parties fell apart and the petitioner is now residing at Thiruvananthapuram with her parents.
3. The allegation is that the respondent has now instituted O.P. 1584 of 2013 before the Family Court, Kollam for dissolution of marriage, the grounds of which are not relevant for the present purpose. According to the petitioner, she is residing at Thiruvananthapuram and she finds it difficult to attend the court at Kollam on all posting dates. It is also pointed out that there is nobody to accompany her. Therefore, she prays for transfer of the case from Family Court, Kollam to Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram.
4. This petition is very strongly opposed by the respondent who has filed a detailed counter. It was pointed out that the marriage was solemnized in Kollam, both parties resided at Kollam, children were born at Kollam and the children are still with the respondent at Kollam. It is also pointed out that the respondent is a practicing doctor at Kollam. In the light of the above facts, according to the respondent, if the transfer as prayed for by the petitioner is granted, it will cause serious hardship to the respondent.
5. The parameters for transfer from one Family Court to another Family Court are well settled by the decisions reported in Leena Mukherjee v. Rabi Shankar Mukherjee ((2002) 10 SCC 480), Simi Mehrotra v. Anil Mehrotra ((2002) 10 SCC 70) and Amita Shah v. Virenderlal Shah ((2003 10 SCC 609). It is true that the petitioner had admitted that she had gone to U.K. for doing her course. Now she says that she finds it difficult to attend the court at Kollam.
6. Considering the nature of the difficulties put forward by the petitioner, it is felt that the prayer appears to be reasonable. As far as the respondent is concerned, his personal appearance may not always be necessary in the Family Court at Thiruvananthapuram. He can also seek exemption from personal appearance.
In the result, this petition is allowed and O.P. 1584 of 2013 pending before the Family Court, Kollam shall stand transferred to Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram.
P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sb.