Gayathri v. Vinesh Kumar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2015/10TH AGRAHAYANA, 1937 Tr.P(C).No. 605 of 2015 () --------------------------- TO TRANSFER O.P. NO. 895/2015 OF FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR TO FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

..........

PETITIONER/PETITIONER:- --------------------------------------- GAYATHRI, AGED 28 YEARS, D/O.SUKUMAR, MULLUVILA HOUSE, AZHAMKAL, EDAGRAMAM, PAPPANAMCODE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 018.

BY ADVS.SRI.S.JUSTUS, SRI.K.T.SEBASTIAN, SRI.N.S.JAYAKRISHNAN.

RESPONDENT:- -------------------- VINESH KUMAR, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.VENUGOPAL, PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, KVEES QUARTERS, DOOR NO.4, SAMOOHAM ROAD, GURUVAYOOR VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR, PIN - 680 101.

BY ADVS. SRI.LINDONS C.DAVIS, SMT.E.U.DHANYA.

THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-12-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs.

Tr.P(C).No. 605 of 2015 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:- ANNEXURE A COPY OF THE PETITION IN O.P. NO.895/2015 ON THE FILE OF FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR.

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:- ANNEXURE R1A COPY OF THE TREATMENT BILLS OF THE RESPONDENT. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs.

K.ABRAHAM MATHEW, J.

--------------------------------------- Tr.P.C. No.605 of 2015 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of December, 2015

ORDER

Petitioner is the wife of the respondent, who has filed O.P.No.895 of 2015 in Family Court, Thrissur. Her request is to transfer it to Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram.

2.

Heard.

3.

Petitioner alleges that she is now residing at Thiruvananthapuram along with her mother and three sisters and the mother is suffering from cancer. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent is employed in Ahamedabad and he has to take leave for 4 or 5 days to come to Kerala to attend the court and he has no relative or friend at Thiruvananthapuram. It is also his submission that the petitioner was residing with her sister at Thrissur. It appears that it will be too harsh to ask the respondent to go to Thiruvananathapuram. On the other hand, the petitioner's sister is residing at Thrissur. So comparative hardship shows that the petitioner's prayer cannot be granted. In the result, this petition is dismissed.

K.ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE pm