TR.P(C) No. 130 of 2009 · Kerala High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
Petition is allowed
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. I heard the counsel on both sides. The application isopposed by the counsel for the respondent submitting that thespouses lastly resided together at Kozhikode and the husband, who is now undergoing training at Walayar employed as aforester, has to travel considerable distance if transfer…
Judgment
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.-------------------------------Tr.P.(C).NO.130 OF 2009 ()-----------------------------------Dated this the 27th day of July, 2009
O R D E RPetition is for transfer filed under Section 24 of the Codeof Civil Procedure. Petitioner is the wife and respondent, thehusband. Matrimonial disputes between them have given riseto two proceedings, one at the instance of the husband and theother by the wife apart from a criminal proceedings under the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Wifehas filed a petition claiming maintenance from the husbandunder Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., and that is pending asM.C.No.77/2009 before the Family court, Kannur. Husbandhas filed a petition as O.P.No.312/2009 for dissolution ofmarriage, which is pending before the Family Court, Kozhikode. Petition filed by the wife alleging inhumantreatment by the husband invoking the provisions under the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 isalso pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thaliparamba. Wife has filed the present petition seeking the TPC.130/092transfer of O.P.No.312/2009, pending before the Family Court, Kozhikode to the Family Court, Kannur where the applicationfor maintenance filed by her is pending.
Notice given, the respondent has entered appearance.
I heard the counsel on both sides. The application isopposed by the counsel for the respondent submitting that thespouses lastly resided together at Kozhikode and the husband, who is now undergoing training at Walayar employed as aforester, has to travel considerable distance if transfer of thecase is ordered. On the other hand, threat to her life iscanvassed by the wife submitting that she had been subjectedto assault by the husband and that had already given rise tothe petition filed by her imputing offence under the DomesticViolence Act against him before the court. She isapprehensive of appearing before the Family Court, Kozhikodeand there is none to accompany her to that place, is thefurther grievance canvassed. Having regard to thesubmissions made and taking into consideration the plight of TPC.130/093an estranged wife and most probably with none to assist her, Ifind her request for transfer has to be sympatheticallyconsidered. A petition filed by the wife for claimingmaintenance is already pending before the Family Court, Kannur. It is proper and appropriate to transfer the petitionfiled by the husband O.P.No.312/2009 also to that court sothat the same Judge will be in a position to consider thedisputes between the parties and pass appropriate orders inaccordance with law. So much so, I direct for transfer ofO.P.No.312/2009 on the file of the Family court, Kozhikode tothe Family Court, Kannur. The Judge, Family court Kannur onreceipt of the records shall give notice to the parties forappearance. Petition is allowed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGEprp
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Petition is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 125.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 27 Jul 2009. The bench was S S SATHEESACHANDRAN.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.