TR.P.(C.) No. 885 of 2023 · Kerala High Court
Case at a glance
- Bench
- C JAYACHANDRAN
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that M.C. No.59/2023 filed by the petitioner seeking maintenance is also pending before the Family Court, Kannur, which is an added reason to allow the instant Transfer Petition. In the circumstances, this Transfer Petition is allowed, directing…
Judgment
ORDER This petition is preferred by the petitioner/wife, seeking transfer of O.P. No.1643 of 2023 from the Family Court, Kozhikode to the Family Court, Kannur. Transfer is sought for on the ground of convenience of the wife, since she is residing within the limits of the transferee court.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Though the respondent was served, he had not chosen to appear before this Court.
In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in N.C.V.Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha [AIR 2022 SC 4318], the convenience of the wife is certainly a matter to be taken into consideration, while fixing the forum for Tr.P.(C.) No.885 of 2023 adjudication of matrimonial disputes. 3
Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that M.C. No.59/2023 filed by the petitioner seeking maintenance is also pending before the Family Court, Kannur, which is an added reason to allow the instant Transfer Petition. In the circumstances, this Transfer Petition is allowed, directing transfer of O.P. No.1643 of 2023 pending before the Family Court, Kozhikode, to the Family Court, Kannur. The transferor Court shall transmit the entire records to the transferee Court, forthwith. Sd/- C. JAYACHANDRAN JUDGE SKP/15-02 Tr.P.(C.) No.885 of 2023 4 APPENDIX OF TR.P(C) 885/2023 PETITIONER’ ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE 1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL PETITION IN O.P. NO. 1643/2023 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, KOZHIKODE RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES:NIL TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE
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.