Ananthanarayanan P.G. v. Premalatha N

**IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** **FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 13TH MAGHA, 1939** **Tr.P(C).No. 775 of 2017** **TO TRANSFER OP.NO.753/2017 of FAMILY COURT, KANNUR TO THE FAMILY COURT, OTTAPALAM.** **------** **PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENT ------------------------** **ANANTHANARAYANAN P.G, AGED 62 YEARS, S/O. LATE GOPALAN, NEDUNGOTTOOR VEEDU, NEDUNGOTTOOR P.O, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.** **BY ADV.SRI.P.JAYARAM** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER:** **------------------------** **PREMALATHA. N, AGED 52 YEARS, D/O. SREEDHARAN, PONNNAI HOUSE, PUZHATHI P.O, PALLIKKUNNU,KANNUR, NOW RESIDING AT: PREM NIVAS, GANESHGIRI P.O, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT 679 123.** **BY ADV. SRI.P.K.RAVISANKAR** **THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02-02-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **TS** ## **Tr.P(C).No. 775 of 2017** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES -----------------------** **ANNEXURE A1:- TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION IN O.P.NO.753/2017, ON THE FILES OF FAMILY COURT, KANNUR FILED BY THE RESPONDENT HEREIN.** **ANNEXURE A2:- TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION IN MC.NO.327/2016 ON THE FILES OF FAMILY COURT, KANNUR FILED BY THE RESPONDENT HEREIN FOR MAINTENANCE.** **ANNEXURE A3:- TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION IN MC.NO.97/2017 ON THE FILES OF FAMILY COURT, OTTAPALAM SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER HEREIN, ANNEXURE A4:- TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION IN CMP.NO,418/2015, M.C.NO.216/2013. ON THE FILES OF FAMILY COURT, OTTAPALAM, FILED BY RESPONDENT HEREIN.** **ANNEXURE A5:- TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION IN MC.NO.8/2013 ON THE FILES OF FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD FILED BY RESPONDENT HEREIN.** **ANNEXURE A6:- TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION IN C.M.P.NO.528/2011.M.C.NO.161/2007 ON THE FILES OF FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD FILED BY THE RESPONDENT HEREIN. ANNEXURE A7:- TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION IN CMP.NO.377/2014 IN MC.NO.161/2007 ON THE FILES OF FAMILY COURT, OTTAPALAM FILED BY THE RESPONDENT HEREIN. ANNEXURE A8:- TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION IN CMP.NO,.10/2017,MC.NO.216/2003 ON THE FILES OF FAMILY COURT, OTTAPALAM FILED BY THE RESPONDENT HEREIN.** **ANNEXURE A9:- TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 09.10.2017 SENT TO SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TOWN STATION, KANNUR BY THE PETITIONER. ANNEXURE A9(A):- TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT TO THE POSTAGE OF ANNEXURE A8 COMPLAINT.** **ANNEXURE A10:- TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PETITONER FROM NILA HOSPITAL PVT.LTD,PATTAMBI.** **RESPONDENT(S)'ANNEXURES - NIL** **------------------------------** **ANNEXURE R(1):- TRUE COPY OF THE ENVELOPE THAT CONTAINED NOTICE ISSUED FROMM THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN THE ABOVE TR.P.** **TS** **Tr.P(C).No. 775 of 2017** **ANNEXURE R(2):- TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 4-8-2016 IN O.P.NO.779 OF 2015 ON THE FILE OF FAMILY COURT, KANNUR.** **ANNEXURE R(3):- TRUE COPY OF THE RESIDENCE CERTIFICATE DATED 2.1.2018 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PUZHATHI.** **/TRUE COPY/** **PS TO JUDGE** **TS 06/03/2018** ## **ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.** ---------------------------------------- ## Tr.P.(C) No.775 of 2017 ----------------------------------------Dated this the 2[nd] day of February, 2018 ## _**O R D E R**_ ## The prayer in this Transfer Petition (Civil) is as follows : _“.......it is most humbly prayed that this Honourable Court may be pleased to transfer O.P.No.753/2017 pending before the Family court, Kannur to Family Court, Ottapalam.”_ 2. Heard Sri.P.Jayaram, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.P.K.Ravisankar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 3. The petitioner is the divorced husband of the respondent. The marriage between these spouses was dissolved as per AnnexureR2 judgment dated 4.8.2016 rendered by the Family Court, Kannur in O.P.No.779 of 2015. The respondent has filed Annexure-A1 O.P.No.753 of 2017 before the Family Court, Kannur, seeking return of gold ornaments or in lieu thereof for return of the monetary value thereof. The petitioner’s case is that both the petitioner and the respondent are residing at Ottapalam, Palakkad, and that the matter in Annexure-A1 O.P.No.753 of 2017 has been deliberately filed by the respondent before the Family Court, Kannur, to cause inconvenience and hardships to the petitioner. The petitioner would further urge that earlier the respondent had filed M.C.No.161 of 2007, M.C.No.216 of 2013 and M.C.No.8 of 2013 all for maintenance claims, before the Family Court, : **:2::** Tr.P.(C) No.775/17 Ottapalam, and before the Family Court, Palakkad, and that the present attempt to institute Annexure-A1 Original Petition, O.P.No.753 of 2017 before the Family Court, Kannur, is causing great hardships and difficulties for him. 4. Per contra, the respondent would contend through her counter affidavit that since her father was suffering ailments, she was constrained to be with him in his residence at Ottapalam and that is why during the previous occasions she was constrained to initiate maintenance proceedings before the Family Court at Ottapalam, Palakkad. Further it is stated that as a matter of fact she is staying at Pallikkunnu, near Kannur and that she cannot be faulted for having filed Annexure-A1 O.P.No.753 of 2017 before the Family Court, Kannur. Sri.P.K.Ravisankar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, would pointedly contend on the basis of Annexure-R1 produced along with the counter affidavit that the petitioner has intentionally shown her address in the cause title of this Transfer Petition as if she is at Ottapalam, even though the cause title in Annexure-A1 O.P.No.753 of 2017 clearly shows that her address is at Kannur and that despite this discrepancy in the descriptions of the cause title of this Tr.P.(C) in comparison to the cause title of Annexure-A1 O.P., the defect in that regard was not noted by the Registry and notice by speed post was actually sent to her address shown in the cause title of this Tr.P.(C) : **:3::** Tr.P.(C) No.775/17 and which is actually the residence of her father and when the postman had delivered the postal article, it was intimated that the petitioner is not residing at Ottapalam and the postman had collected the petitioner’s address at Kannur, from her father and had redirected the notice sent by this Court through speed post to her at address at Ponnai House, Pallikkunnu, Kannur. The petitioner has produced Annexure-R1 photocopy of the speed post envelop bearing registration No.EL 324218297 IN etc. The original of Annexure-R1 speed post envelope has also been made available by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent for the perusal of this Court. On a perusal of the Original of Annexure-R1 envelope, it is seen that the address initially written in that envelope is as shown in the cause title of this Transfer Petition and it is seen that the postal authorities has redirected the said postal article to the petitioner’s address at Ponnai House, Pallikkunnu, Kannur, which is the same address as the one shown in the cause title of Annexure-A1 O.P.No.753 of 2017 on the file of the Family Court, Kannur. The petitioner’s counsel would strongly urge that the respondent is actually living at Shornur in a jurisdiction exercising transfer of powers under Section 24 of the C.P.C. This Court need not get too much involved in the adjudication of these details. It appears that the parties who were spouses have been bitterly divorced and the differences of opinion seem to persist even now. For the purpose of the adjudication of this Transfer : **:4::** Tr.P.(C) No.775/17 Petition (Civil), this Court is satisfied that the address of the respondent as shown in this Transfer Petition may not be correct which is vindicated by the fact that Annexure-R1 speed post article sent from this Court has actually redirected and delivered to the respondent's address at Pallikkunnu, Kannur. 5. Sri.P.Jayaram, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the respondent and his son had threatened physical violence on the petitioner on some occasions when he had to attend the Family Court at Kannur. These allegations are vehemently denied by Sri.P.K.Ravisankar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. Sri.P.K.Ravisankar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, submits on the basis of instructions of his party that the respondent has not threatened or caused any harm to the petitioner and that she will not in any manner cause any problem or harm to the petitioner during the conduct of the litigative proceedings before the Family Court, Kannur. These allegations now raised by the petitioner’s counsel could be adequately redressed by issuing necessary directions by this Court. 6. 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 : **:5::** Tr.P.(C) No.775/17 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. 7. In the light of these aspects, this Court is not inclined as of now to grant the prayer sought for in this Transfer Petition for transferring O.P.No.753 of 2017 from the Family Court, Kannur to the Family Court, Ottapalam. However, it is ordered that the petitioner will be at liberty to make necessary applications before the Family Court, Kannur, for grant of exemption from personal appearance in which case the said court shall consider that plea fabourably taking note of the abovesaid aspects pointed herein above. But, it should be ensured that the petitioner is regularly represented through his Advocate in the proceedings before the Family Court, Kannur. However, the petitioner should be personally present at the time of mediation, counselling etc. and as and when specifically directed by the Court. Further it is ordered that in case the petitioner apprehends any untoward incident from the side of the respondent, in relation to his attendance before the Family Court, Kannur, then the petitioner shall immediately file a petition before the Family Court, Kannur, through his counsel bringing to the notice of that court about such incidents, if any. The petitioner will also immediately file necessary petitions before the Station House Officer, concerned as well as before the District Police Chief, Kannur, : **:6::** Tr.P.(C) No.775/17 detailing out the alleged incidents in which case the said police officers shall ensure that necessary action is taken thereon in accordance with law. If the petitioner is made to face any such untoward incidents, he is at liberty to file an application in this Transfer Petition alleging such incidents, if any, in which case this Court will examine the merits of the matter and depending on the report of the police authorities, this Court may even consider recalling of the present order, so as to reconsider the plea of the petition for transfer. 8. Sri.P.Jayaram, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would vehemently urge that many of the documents produced by the respondent in this counter affidavit are false and manipulated. Both sides have also submitted that this Court may also issue necessary directions to the Family Court, Kannur, to ensure the early disposal of O.P.No.753 of 2017, without much delay. In the light of this submission, it is ordered that the Family Court, Kannur, will take all reasonable measures possible under the circumstances to ensure the disposal of O.P.No.753 of 2017, without much delay, preferably within a period of 6 to 8 months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. With these observations and directions, the Original Petition (Civil) will stand finally disposed of. ## **ALEXANDER THOMAS JUDGE** csl