Introduction: The case of Femy Francis vs. Julian Tom Thomas was brought before the Kerala High Court at Ernakulam, presided over by the Honourable Mr. Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque, on February 12, 2014. The petition, Tr.P(C).No. 606 of 2013, pertained to a request for the transfer of O.P(DIV) No.1223/2013 from the Family Court, Pathanamthitta, to the Family Court, Irinjalakuda.
Background: Femy Francis, represented as the petitioner, sought the transfer of the divorce proceedings initiated by Julian Tom Thomas, the respondent, from Pathanamthitta to Irinjalakuda. The petitioner cited logistical difficulties in attending court proceedings due to the distance between her residence and the Family Court, as well as concerns for her safety and lack of accompaniment.
Key Arguments: During the hearing, the petitioner’s counsel, Sri C.S. Dias and Sri N.K. Subramanian, argued for the transfer based on the petitioner’s logistical challenges and cited a case filed under the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005, as additional grounds for transfer. The respondent’s counsel, Sri V. Sethunath and Sri S. Justus, opposed the transfer, citing fears of potential harm to the respondent.
Court’s Observations: The court carefully considered the arguments presented by both parties, including the petitioner’s logistical challenges and the respondent’s concerns for safety.
Court’s Decision: After deliberation, the Honourable Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque granted the transfer petition, acknowledging the petitioner’s difficulties in attending court proceedings and finding no basis for the respondent’s apprehensions. The court ordered the withdrawal of O.P(DIV) No.1223/2013 from the Family Court, Pathanamthitta, and its transfer to the Family Court, Irinjalakuda.
Conclusion: In conclusion, the Kerala High Court, under the jurisdiction of Mr. Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque, ruled in favor of Femy Francis, granting her petition for the transfer of divorce proceedings to a more accessible venue. The court’s decision reflects a balance between addressing the petitioner’s logistical challenges and upholding due process.
Reference: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/124335890/