Point of Law: Court do not think mere temporary stay for some reasons cannot be the foundation for transferring matters pending before the competent jurisdiction filed by the petitioner, who is a permanent resident within the jurisdiction of the said court.

ORDER :

1. Petitioner/Shilpa Shaji, who is the wife of the first respondent in this petition, has filed this transfer petition under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code, seeking to transfer O.P. No. 669/2019 and O.P. (HMA) No. 672/2019 and O.P. (HMA) No. 700/2021 pending before the Family Court, Pathanamthitta to Family Court, Ernakulam.

2. During the pendency of this transfer petition and after the appearance of the respondents, I.A. No. 1/2022 was filed to incorporate prayer to transfer O.P. (G&W) No. 352/2020. Similarly, I.A. No. 2/2022 also filed to allow transfer of O.P. (G&W) No. 352/2020 pending before the Family Court, Pathanamthitta to Family Court, Ernakulam. I.A. Nos. 1/2022 and 2/2022 stand allowed.

3. Now, the question to be decided is whether O.P. No. 669/2019 and O.P. (HMA) No. 672/2019 and O.P. (HMA) No. 700/2021 and O.P. (G&W) No. 352/2020 are liable to be transferred from Family Court, Pathanamthitta to Family Court, Ernakulam for the reasons stated by the petitioner.

4. Heard both sides in detail.

5. It is vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the marital relationship between the petitioner and the first respondent was strained due to unspeakable cruel treatment towards the petitioner by the first respondent and her mother for dowry. Accordingly, the petitioner left the house of the respondents on 17.10.2018 and they have been living separately at their respective residences. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that at present the petitioner is residing in Ernakulam district. Therefore, taking note of the convenience of the petitioner, the above four cases required to be transferred from Family Court, Pathanamthitta to Family Court, Ernakulam. It is submitted further that the distance from Family Court, Pathanamthitta to the present place of residence of the petitioner is 120 km. Further, it is argued that the petitioner apprehends danger, if the cases are being tried before the Family Court, Pathanamthitta.

6. The learned counsel for the respondents zealously opposed this contention and highlighted the counter statement filed by the respondents in this case. Paragraph Nos. 3 to 6 in the counter affidavit are extracted hereunder to see the contention raised by the respondents:

“3. I submit that the averment of the petitioner in paragraph 4 of the transfer petition that she is residing in the address given in the transfer petition from February 2000 is false. O.P. No. 669 of 2019 and O.P. (HMA) No. 672 of 2019 was filed by the petitioner before the Family Court, Pathanamthitta. Petitioner has admitted in the said original petitions that she is residing with her parents in the address given in the said original petitions which is at Madaman, Ranni. In both the original petitions I had entered appearance and the same is being prosecuted by me. In O.P. No. 669 of 2019 there were two and in O.P. (HMA) No. 672 of 2019 there were three counselling spread over days. In none of the said counselling petitioner has pointed out that she was residing in Ernakulam. Petitioner was prosecuting the said original petitions before the Family Court, Pathanamthitta for the past two years even when she states that she was residing in Ernakulam since February 2000.

4. In July 2021, I had filed O.P. (HMA) No. 700 of 2021 before the Family Court Pathanamthitta seeking for divorce. In the said original petition also the address of the petitioner is in Madaman, Ranni and she has accepted the notice in the said address. That itself proves that the averment to the contrary in the transfer petition is false.

5. I submit that the petitioner is not residing in the address mentioned in the Transfer Petition filed before this Hon’ble Court. In the wedlock, my son Jagan Nath K.S. was born on 14.10.2017. He is now 4 years old. Since the petitioner was not allowing me to see the child and since he was not being looked after well and since his residence in the house of the petitioner was not conducive f