Kerala HC refuses transfer 498a to husband's place as wife is unemployed! though other cases are running at hubby's place. Why NOT pay travel exp & drag wife?

Notes

• Seems to be a typical case where the entire BOY's family is running after false cases of the wife !!
• Wife seems to have filed multiple cases
• Kerala HC refuses transfer 498a to husband's place as wife is unemployed! though other cases are running at hubby's place, why NOT pay travel exp and drag wife ?
• does anyone think the BOY's advocate messed up this case too ??

     case from the judis dot net

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                               PRESENT:

          THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

          MONDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY 2013/1ST MAGHA 1934

                                    Tr.P(Crl.).No. 67 of 2012 ()
                                         ----------------------------

    AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN MC.NO.3/2012 of JUDICIAL FIRST
    CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-IV,KOZHIKODE TO JUDICIAL FIRST
    CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, THALASSERY)
                                                      .........

    PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENTS:
    --------------------------------------------------

   1. SUMITH T.K. AGED 28 YEARS,
      S/O.SUKUMARAN.T.P,'SREEYESS',PALAYAD POST,
      ANDALLUR,THALASSERY,KANNUR DISTRICT.

   2. SREEJA SUKUMARAN, AGED 49 YEARS,
      W/O.SUKUMARAN.T.P,'SREEYESS',PALAYAD POST,
      ANDALLUR,THALASSERY,KANNUR DISTRICT.

   3. SUKUMARAN.T.P., AGED 58 YEARS,
      'SREEYESS',PALAYAD POST,ANDALLUR,
      THALASSERY,KANNUR DISTRICT.

      BY ADV. SRI.ZUBAIR PULIKKOOL

    RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER & STATE:
    ------------------------------------------------------------

   1. ROSHNA K.R., AGED 26 YEARS,
      D/O.RAGHUTHAMAN.K,KOROTH HOUSE,YMCA ROAD,
      KOZHIKODE, PIN-673 001.

   2. STATE OF KERALA,
      REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
      HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM.

      R1 BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY MATHEW
      R 2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN

      THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
     ON 21-01-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

Kss

Tr.P(Criminal)No.67/2012




                               APPENDIX


PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:


ANNEX.1:      COPY OF THE M.C.NO.3/2012 DATED 24/12/2011 FILED BY THE

              RESPONDENT BEFORE THE JFCM COURT IV, KOZHIKODE.




RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:                    N I L




                                                         /TRUE COPY/




                                                         P.S.TO JUDGE


Kss


 
                         T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
               - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                          T.P.(Crl).No. 67 of 2012
               - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                   DATED THIS THE 21st DAY OF JANUARY, 2013

                                 O R D E R


      The prayer is for transfer of M.C.No.3/2012 pending on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-IV, Kozhikode to Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thalassery.             

The petitioners are respondents in Annexure I. The first petitioner herein is the husband of the first respondent and petitioners 2 and 3 are his parents.

      2. Heard parties.

      3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there cases are pending before the courts at Thalassery, between the parties. One of them is pending as Crime No. 636/2011 alleging offence under Section 498-A I.P.C.  O.P.No.1068/2011 is pending before the Family Court, Thalassery for return of money and gold ornaments. That also was filed against the first petitioner.  The third one is O.P.No.1012/2011 filed by the first petitioner seeking divorce which is also pending in the same Family Court.

      4. The first petitioner is working as a Doctor in Thalassery. While opposing the contentions of the petitioners, learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that the first respondent is unemployed and is residing in Kozhikode and the transfer of the case to Thalassery will be of great inconvenient to her. It is also submitted that the convenience of the wife alone is the relevant consideration.

5. Having heard the parties, I am of the view that simply because there other matters are pending before the courts at Thalassery, the petitioners are not entitled for a transfer of M.C. No.3/2012 to the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thalassery. Going by the admitted facts, the first respondent is residing in Kozhikode and she is unemployed also. Even though learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the second petitioner is aged and therefore the transfer of the case may be favourably considered, I am of the view that since the first respondent herein is a native of Kozhikode and residing there, no grounds are made out for a transfer.

Therefore, the Transfer Petition is dismissed.

No costs.

(T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE)

kav/