Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 151 (KER)

Milu Martin v. C. K. Reji

2018-02-15

ALEXANDER THOMAS

body2018
ORDER : ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. 1. The prayer in Tr.P.(C) No. 40 of 2018 is as follows : ".........it is most respectfully and humbly prayed that this Honourable Court may be pleased to transfer O.P. No. 766/2017 pending before the Family Court, Muvattupuzha, to the Family Court, Ernakulam, for trial and disposal." 2. Heard Sri. Biju George, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. P.P.Biju, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 3. The petitioner herein is the wife of the respondent herein. Difference of opinion between the parties have led to matrimonial disputes which in turn has led to litigative proceedings between them. The respondent-husband has filed O.P. No. 766 of 2017 before the Family Court, Muvattupuzha, seeking restitution of conjugal rights. The petitioner-wife has filed M.C. No. 43 of 2015 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kolencherry, for maintenance in terms of the provisions contained in the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act and the said case has now been transferred to the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-VIII, Maradu, Ernakulam, where it has been re-numbered as M.C. No. 22 of 2017. The petitioner-wife would contend that she is residing at Maradu in Ernakulam along with her parents and there is none to look after her minor child and that she finds it extremely difficult to travel all the way from Maradu in Ernakulam District, to attend to the Family Court proceedings at Muvattpuzha. The plea for transfer is opposed by the respondent on the ground that it would cause unnecessary hardships to him in case the plea for transfer is allowed. Sri. P.P.Biju, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, would also submit that this Court may also issue necessary directions in the matter of effective mediatory efforts between the parties. 4. The difficulties expressed on behalf of the respondent-husband regarding travelling, etc. could be alleviated by issuing necessary directions in the matter of grant of personal exemption. In the judgments of the Apex Court as in Sumitha Singh v. Kumar Sanjay & Anr. reported in (2001) 10 SCC 41, Rajwinder Kaur v. Balwinder Singh reported in (2003) 11 SCC 726, Mona Aresh Goel v. Aresh Satya Goel, reported in (2000) 9 SCC 255 , Vaishali Shridhar Jagtap v. Shridhar Vishwanath Jagtap, reported in AIR 2016 SC 3584 , etc. reported in (2001) 10 SCC 41, Rajwinder Kaur v. Balwinder Singh reported in (2003) 11 SCC 726, Mona Aresh Goel v. Aresh Satya Goel, reported in (2000) 9 SCC 255 , Vaishali Shridhar Jagtap v. Shridhar Vishwanath Jagtap, reported in AIR 2016 SC 3584 , etc. it has been held that in the matter of transfer of cases from one Family Court to another, inconvenience caused to the wife should be given special consideration by the courts. Now it has come on record that there are two litigative proceedings between the spouses out of which one is before the Family Court, Muvattupuzha, and the other is before the Magistrate Court at Maradu, Ernakulam. It is only in the interest of both sides that all the litigations are conducted in the same place, as otherwise it would cause unnecessary hardships and difficulties for the parties in properly managing the litigative affairs. In the light of the facts and circumstances and more particularly in the light of the legal position settled by the Apex Court, this Court is inclined to consider the plea for transfer. 5. Accordingly, it is ordered in the interest of justice O.P. No. 766 of 2017 now on the file of the Family Court, Muvattupuzha, will stand transferred to the Family Court, Ernakulam. The petitioner will produce a certified copy of this judgment before the Family Court, Muvattupuzha, upon which the said court will transmit the entire case papers and records in relation to O.P. No. 766 of 2017 to the Family Court, Ernakulam. Upon receipt of the case papers, the Family Court, Ernakulam, will issue notices to both sides and then proceed with the matter in accordance with law. It is also ordered that the Family Court, Ernakulam, will take steps without any further delay to ensure that the parties are referred for mediation process in order to seriously examine the feasibility of the mediatory settlement of the disputes between the spouses. 6. In order to alleviate the difficulties of the parties for personally attending before the Family Court, it is ordered in the interest of justice that it will be open to both the parties to make appropriate applications for exemption from personal appearance before the Family Court, upon which the said request may be considered favourably, provided the parties are represented through their respective Advocates. However, it is made clear that the parties will have to appear before the Family Court at the time of counselling and mediation process, etc., as and when specifically so directed by the Family Court. With these observations and directions, the Transfer Petition (Civil) will stand finally disposed of.