PRIYANKA PRABHAKARAN v. RAJANEESH P.K.

**IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** **MONDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 14TH PHALGUNA, 1939** **Tr.P(C).No. 66 of 2018** ## **PETITIONER(S) :** **PRIYANKA PRABHAKARAN, D/O.PRABAHAKARAN, 32 YEARS, PRAMEELALAYAM, PALLIKUNNU POST, KANNUR.** **BY ADVS. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SRI.K.ASHIS** ## **RESPONDENT(S) :** **RAJANEESH P.K., S/O.RAGHAVAN, 39 YEARS, PEEDIKAKANDIYIL HOUSE, NARIPATTA POST, KALLACHIAMSOM, VATAKARA- 680 001.** **BY ADV. SRI.C.R.SIVAKUMAR** **THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05-03-2018, ALONG WITH Tr.P(C).No.67 OF 2018 AND Tr.P(C).No.141 OF 2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Msd.** **13.03.2018** **Tr.P(C).No. 66 of 2018** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES :** **ANNEXURE I: A TRUE COPY OF THE M.C.NO.224 OF 2017 ON THE FILE OF THE FAMILY COURT, KANNUR. ANNEXURE II: A TRUE COPY OF THE O.P.NO.70 OF 2018 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, KANNUR FOR PAST MAINTENANCE. ANNEXURE III: A TRUE COPY OF O.P.NO.655 OF 2017 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, VATAKARA.** **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES :** ## **NIL** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.S.TO JUDGE** **Msd. 13.03.2018** ## **ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.** --------------------------------------------- ## Tr.P.(C) Nos.66, 67 & 141 of 2018 ---------------------------------------------Dated this the 5[th] day of March, 2018 ## _**O R D E R**_ The prayer in Tr.P.(C) No.66 of 2018 is as follows : _“........it is most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to transfer O.P.No.655 of 2017 from the Family Court, Vatakara, to the Family Court, Kannur, in the interest of justice.”_ The prayer in Tr.P.(C) No.67 of 2018 is as follows : _“.....it is most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to transfer O.P.No.685 of 2017 from the Family Court, Vatakara, to the Family Court, Kannur, in the interest of justice.”_ The prayer in Tr.P.(C) No.141 of 2018 is as follows : - _“(i) To transfer O.P.No.70/2018 on the file of the Hon'ble Family Court, Kannur to Family Court at Vatakara._ - _(ii) To stay further proceedings in O.P.No.70/2018 on the file of the Family Court, Kannur, till the final disposal of the present Tr.P.(C)._ - _(iii) To pass any other appropriate orders deem fit and proper in the Tr.P.(C).”_ 2. Heard Sri.Sreekumar.G.(Chelur), learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-wife (respondent in Tr.P.(C) No.141 of 2018) and Sri.C.R.Sivakumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondenthusband (petitioner in Tr.P.(C) No.141 of 2018). 3. The petitioner in Tr.P.(C) No.67 of 2018 (who is also the Tr.P.(C) Nos.66, 67 & 141/18 : **:2::** petitioner in Tr.P.(C) No.66 of 2018 as well as the sole respondent in Tr.P.(C) No.141 of 2018) is the wife of the first respondent in Tr.P.(C) No.67 of 2018 (who is also the sole respondent in Tr.P.(C) No.66 of 2018 and the sole petitioner in Tr.P.(C) No.141 of 2018). The second and third respondents in Tr.P.(C) No.67 of 2018 are the parents of the first respondent therein (husband) and they have been impleaded in the Tr.P.(C) as they are the co-respondents in the matter which is sought to be transferred, etc. 4. Differences of opinion between the spouses have led to matrimonial disputes which in turn has led to litigative proceedings. As of now, in Tr.P.(C) Nos.66 and 67 of 2018, the wife has filed Annexure-I M.C.No.224 of 2017 for maintenance before the Family Court, Kannur, and Annexure-II O.P.No.70 of 2018 for past maintenance, both before the Family Court, Kannur. The husband has filed O.P.No.685 of 2017 (produced as Annexure-III in Tr.P.(C) No.67 of 2018) for return of money as well as O.P.No.655 of 2017 (produced as Annexure – III in Tr.P.(C) No.66 of 2018) for restitution of conjugal rights, both before the Family Court, Vatakara. It appears that the husband is residing at Vatakara in Kozhikode District and the abovesaid two proceedings initiated by him has been filed before the Family Court at Vatakara. Whereas the wife is residing at Pallikkunnu in Kannur District and she has instituted the abovesaid two proceedings at her instance before the Tr.P.(C) Nos.66, 67 & 141/18 : **:3::** Family Court, Kannur. The wife would contend that she is now residing with her parents at Pallikkunnu in Kannur District and she finds it extremely difficult to travel all the way from her residential locality to attend to the Family Court proceedings at Vatakara. Moreover, it is stated that out of the four litigative proceedings, two are already before the Family Court, Kannur. Therefore, it is only for the convenience of all sides that all the matters are litigated before the same forum. 5. Sri.C.R.Sivakumar, learned counsel appearing for the husband, would point out that the father of the wife is alleged to be a close associate of the present ruling party and that the wife’s father has openly threatened that he would teach him (husband) a lesson, if he tries to come to Kannur. These allegations are stoutly denied by Sri.Sreekumar G.(Chelur), learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Tr.P.(C) Nos.66 and 67 of 2018. Further, Sri.Sreekumar.G.(Chelur), learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit on the basis of instructions from his party that no harm or untoward incidents would be caused as against the husband and that the apprehensions in that regard entertained by him is without any foundation and that the incidents as alleged are totally incorrect and false. The said undertaking made on behalf of the wife is recorded. Further the husband would submit that he would have to face lot of hardships, if the prayer for transfer is allowed inasmuch as he would have to travel all the way from Tr.P.(C) Nos.66, 67 & 141/18 : **:4::** Vatakara, to Kannur. The difficulties expressed on behalf of the respondent-husband in that regard could be alleviated by issuing necessary directions in the matter of grant of personal exemption. 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 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, etc. As of now there are four litigative proceedings out of which two are at Vatakara and two are at Kannur. If all the proceedings are before the same court, it will make a better co-ordinated litigative management to both sides. 7. In the light of the abovesaid factual aspects disclosed in this petition, the prayer for transfer in Tr.P.C.Nos.66 and 67 of 2018 as made out by the wife could be considered and the prayer for transfer made out by the husband in his Tr.P.C.No.141 of 2018 is only to be declined. Accordingly, it is ordered that O.P.No.685 of 2017 and O.P.No.655 of 2017 now on the file of the Family Court, Vatakara, will stand transferred to the Family Court, Kannur. The petitioner in Tr.P.(C) Tr.P.(C) Nos.66, 67 & 141/18 : **:5::** Nos.66 and 67 of 2018 will produce a certified copy of this order before the Family Court, Vatakara, without further delay. Upon receipt of the copy of the order, the Family Court, Vatakara, will take steps to ensure that the case papers and case records in relation to O.P.No.655 of 2017 and O.P.No.685 of 2017 pending on the file of that court are transmitted to the Family Court at Kannur. After receiving the case papers and case records in relation to O.P.No.655 of 2017 and O.P.No.685 of 2017, the Family Court at Kannur, will issue notices to all the parties and proceed further with the matter, in accordance with law. 8. As regards the apprehension made by the husband regarding the alleged threat said to have been made by his father in law, etc., and his alleged close political connection with the ruling party, it is ordered that in case the husband faces any threat or obstruction in that regard in relation to conduct the present litigative proceedings, then he would immediately apprise the said factual situation to the Family Court, Kannur, and should also file necessary petitions before the District Police Chief as well as the I.G. of Police. On such petitions being made, the said competent police authorities will deal with such complaints and examine whether there is any prima facie truth in those allegations regarding the alleged commission of any cognizable offence. In such an eventuality, the parties will also be at liberty to file appropriate applications before this Court, so as to reopen the present Tr.P.(C) Nos.66, 67 & 141/18 : **:6::** proceedings and this Court would then consider such application based on the then prevailing facts and circumstances. With these observations and directions, the above Transfer Petitions (Civil) will stand finally disposed of. **ALEXANDER THOMAS JUDGE** csl