Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.PRATHEEP KUMAR, J
ASMI M – Appellant
Versus
PRASEEL .A.FAZAL – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's need for transfer due to geographical distance. (Para 2) |
| 2. respondents argue against the transfer based on convenience. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court observations on hardship and transportation challenges. (Para 5) |
| 4. outcome of the transfer petitions allowed. (Para 6) |
ORDER
Dated : 12th November, 2025 The petitioner in Tr.P.(Crl).71/2024 is the 1st petitioner in Tr.P.
(Crl).69/2024. The 2nd petitioner in Tr.P.(Crl).69/2024 is the minor daughter of the petitioner. They are the petitioners in M.C.107/2017 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Varkala, filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 . She filed the above petition before the JFCM Court, Varkala as at the time of filing the suit, she was staying along with the 1st respondent, namely her husband in the shared household. Now the petitioner is residing at Elippakulam in Alappuzha district, 70 Kms away from the JFCM Court, Varkala. Now she has to attend the JFCM Court, Varkala along with her six year old child travelling such a long distance and the same is affecting the studies of the child and causing irreparable injury and hardship to the petiti
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
