Stigi M. Koshy v. Lijo Noble George and others

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** **TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY 2018 / 26TH POUSHA, 1939** **Tr.P(C).No. 649 of 2017** **(TO TRANSFER IN OP.NO.58/2017 OF FAMILY COURT, PALA TO FAMILY COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA)** **--------** ## **PETITIONER/PETITIONER:** **STIGI M.KOSHY, AGED 36 YEARS,D/O.KOSHY MATHEW,VILAYIL HOUSE, MUKKADA.P.O,MANIMALA VILLAGE,KANJIRAPPALLY TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADV.SRI.MANU RAMACHANDRAN** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT:** **1. LIJO NOBLE GEORGE, AGED 39 YEARS,S/O GEORGE CHACKO, THADATHUKALAYIL HOUSE, KIDANGANNOOR.P.O,KIDANGANNOOR VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.** ## **2. LISSY CHACKO,** **AGED 58 YEARS,W/O.GEORGE CHACKO, THADATHUKALAYIL HOUSE,KIDANGANNOOR.P.O, KIDANGANNOOR VILLAGE,KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.** ## **3. LIJIN NOBLE GEORGE,** **AGED 36 YEARS,S/O.GEORGE CHACKO, THADATHUKALAYIL HOUSE, KIDANGANNOOR.P.O, KIDANGANNOOR VILLAGE,KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.** **4. THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD, ARANKULA BRANCH,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.** **5. THE PATHANAMTHITTA CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD, KAREELAMUKKU BRANCH,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.** **2/-** **-2-** ## **Tr.P(C).No. 649 of 2017** **6. THE KOSAMATTAM FINANCE, ARANMULA BRANCH,SREEPADAM BUILDINGS, ARANMULA.P.O,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.** **R1 & R2 BY ADVS. SRI.LIJU.V.STEPHEN SMT.INDU SUSAN JACOB** **R4 BY SRI.K.K.JOHN,SC,** **THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16-01-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **sts** ## **Tr.P(C).No. 649 of 2017** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:** **ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE O.P.NO.58/2017 ON THE FILES OF THE LEARNED FAMILY COURT, PALA. ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE O.P.NO.912/2017 ON THE FILES OF LEARNED FAMILY COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA.** **RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: NIL** ## **/TRUE COPY/** **P.A.TO JUDGE** **sts** ## **ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.** ---------------------------------------- ## Tr.P.(C) No.649 of 2017 ----------------------------------------- ## Dated this the 16[th] day of January, 2018 ## _**O R D E R**_ The main prayer in this Transfer Petition (Civil) is as follows : - _“(1) To transfer Annexure A1 O.P.No.58 of 2017 pending before the Family Court, Pala to Family Court, Pathanamthitta.”_ 2. Heard Sri.Manu Ramachandran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.Liju V. Stephen, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and Sri.K.K.John, learned Standing Counsel appearing for R4. Since R6 is only a proforma respondent, notice to R6 is dispensed with. The plea for transfer is opposed by respondents 1 to 3 through their counsel. 3. The petitioner herein is the wife of the first respondent herein. Difference of opinion has led to matrimonial disputes and this has led to the petitioner-wife filing the present O.P.No.58 of 2017 before the Family Court, Pala, seeking return of gold and money. The petitioner has also filed O.P.(Div.) No.912 of 2017 before the Family Court, Pathanamthitta, seeking divorce. The petitioner is stated to be residing at Mukkada, Near Manimala, Kottayam District, which is in the border of Kottayam District and Pathanamthitta District. The petitioner would state that the Family Court, Pathanamthitta, is more near to her : **:2::** Tr.P.(C) No.649/17 residence and that O.P. for divorce as O.P.(Div.) No.912 of 2017 is already pending before the Family Court, Pathanamthitta. It is stated that the respondent 1 to 3 have already engaged a lawyer at Pala, in order to prosecute the present O.P.No.58 of 2017 before the Family Court, Pala, and if the case is now transferred, it will cause unnecessary hardships and inconvenience to them. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the distance between the petitioner's residence at Mukkada, Near Manimala to Pala is around 25 to 28 kms. and the distance between Mukkada to Pathanamthitta also comes to about 33 kms. It appears to be more or less equidistant. But it is also brought to the notice of this Court that respondents 1 to 3 are residing at Kidangannur, Kozhencherry Taluk, Pathanamthitta District and the distance between Kidangannur to Pala would be about 70 kms. whereas the distance between their residence at Kidangannur to Pathanamthitta could be 17 or 18 kms. Therefore, respondents 1 to 3 will not be in any manner seriously inconvenienced, if the case is transferred to Pathanamthitta. The most important fact of the matter is that another litigative proceedings as O.P.(Div.) No.912 of 2017 for divorce is already pending before the Family Court, Pathanamthitta, for which the first respondent (husband) has to appear before the Pathanamthitta court irrespective as to whether the present plea for transfer is allowed or rejected. So, it is only better in the interest of both sides that both the litigations are before : **:3::** Tr.P.(C) No.649/17 the same fora instead of driving the parties to different venues for these two litigations. 4. 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. 5. The difficulties expressed by respondents 1 to 3 regarding travel etc. could be appropriately alleviated by issuing necessary directions in the matter exemption from personal appearance. In the light of these aspects, this court is inclined to consider the plea for transfer. Accordingly, it is ordered that O.P.No.58 of 2017 now pending on the file of the Family Court, Pala, will stand transferred to the Family Court, Pathanamthitta. The petitioner will produce a certified copy of this order before the Family Court, Pala, for necessary information. Upon receipt of the copy of the order, the Family Court, Pala, will take steps to ensure that the case papers and case records in relation to O.P.No.58 of 2017 pending on the file of that court are transmitted to the Family Court at Pathanamthitta. After receiving the case papers and : **:4::** Tr.P.(C) No.649/17 case records in relation to O.P.No.58 of 2017, the Family Court at Pathanamthitta, will issue notice to both parties and proceed further with the matter, in accordance with law. 6. Taking into account the hardships and difficulties expressed by both sides, it is also ordered that all the parties concerned will be at liberty to file appropriate applications seeking exemption from personal appearance in which case the Family Court, Pathanamthitta, will favourably consider those applications, provided the parties are duly represented through their respective Advocates. However, the parties should be present at the time of mediation, counselling, etc. as and when he is so directed by the Family Court. 7. Sri.Liju.V.Stephen, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3, had expressed the apprehension that as of now there is no Judicial Officer who is regularly holding the post of Family Court Judge, Pathanamthitta, and that the presiding officer of the Family Court, Thiruvalla, is now having weekly sitting for two days at Pathanamthitta. Taking into account the abovesaid apprehension faced by the learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3, it is ordered in the interest of justice that Family Court, Pathanamthitta, will take all reasonable endeavours possible under the circumstances to ensure that the present matter (which has been ordered to be transferred to that court) as well as the pending divorce Petition (O.P. : **:5::** Tr.P.(C) No.649/17 (Div.) No.912 of 2017) are disposed of without much delay, preferably within a period of 8 to 10 months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. If due to any unforeseen circumstances, due to non posting of the regular Judicial Officer, etc. there are difficulties in meeting the abovesaid target, then the parties concerned will be at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings for ventilating such grievances in accordance with law. With these observations and directions, the above Transfer Petition (Civil) will stand finally disposed of. **ALEXANDER THOMAS JUDGE** csl