Dismissed

Shibina v. Easa Kunju

Kerala HC5 Jun 2008Tr.P(C)/118/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a transfer petition filed by a minor girl's guardian seeking to shift a pending maintenance suit from Nedumangad to Thiruvananthapuram Family Court. The judge rejected convenience and procedural delay as valid grounds, directing the original court to decide the case within two months.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's transfer petition is dismissed; Family Court, Nedumangad directed to dispose suit within two months.

Shibina Vs Easa Kunju — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 5TH JUNE 2008 / 15TH JYAISHTA 1930 Tr.P(C).No. 118 of 2008() ------------------------OS.177/2005 of FAMILY COURT, NEDUMANGAD .................... PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF:

¶3

-------------------------------------

¶4

SHIBINA (MINOR), REPRESENTED BY MOHAMMED HANEEFA, GUARDIAN AND NEXT FRIEND, MUNDAIKONAM, MANGATTU VEEDU, NAGAROOR VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.P.A.AHAMMED SRI.THOUFEEK AHAMED

¶5

RESPONDENT: DEFENDANT: ------------------------------------------EASA KUNJU, S/O. MALIK MOHAMMED, POTTIVILAKATHU VEEDU, MANJAPPRA DESOM.

¶6

¶7

THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶8

Kss

¶9

M.Sasidharan Nambiar,J. ======================= Tr.P(C) No.118 of 2008 =======================

¶10

Dated this the 5^th day of June, 2008

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

Petitioner is the minor daughter of the

¶13

respondent. She filed O.S.264/2000, before Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram with her grandfather as

¶14

the guardian claiming maintenance. Suit was

¶15

decreed ex parte on 31.5.2002. Subsequently

¶16

respondent filed a petition to set aside the ex parte decree. That application was filed by the respondent before Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. That was subsequently transferred to Family Court, Nedumangad on the formation of that court. Petition was allowed and the ex parte decree was set aside. Now the suit is pending before Family Court, Nedumangad. This petition is filed to transfer the case to Family Court,

¶17

Thiruvananthapuram contending that the suit is not

¶18

being disposed by the Family Court, Nedumangad and

¶19

even before the ex parte decree was set aside a

¶20

¶21

settlement was sought to be effected at the chambers of the Family Court and when it was objected to at the instance of the petitioner on the ground that before setting aside the ex parte decree the matter cannot be settled, the ex parte decree was set aside and respondent has not filed a written statement and still the Presiding Officer is not disposing the matter. It was also contended that it is also convenient for the parties to have the trial at Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram and therefore the suit may be transferred to Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram.

¶22

On hearing the learned counsel, I do not find any valid or sufficient ground to order transfer. The transfer was not sought on the ground of the difficulty of the petitioner to conduct the case at Nedumangad; but on the ground that the Family Court, Nedumangad attempted to effect a compromise before the ex parte decree was passed and even thereafter court is not disposing the suit. It is the duty of the Family Court to try

¶23

¶24

for a reconciliation between the parties. Such attempt shall not be misunderstood by the parties as bias to one of the parties. I find no valid or sufficient ground to order transfer. In such cirucmstance, petition is dismissed. Family Court, Nedumangad is directed to dispose the suit as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶25

Tr.P.(C) is disposed of as above.

¶26

M.Sasidharan Nambiar Judge

¶27

tpl/-

¶28

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.

¶29

--------------------CRL.R.P.NO. /08 --------------------ORDER

¶30

MARCH,2008

Shibina v. Easa Kunju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shibina v. Easa Kunju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Midas Pre-Cured Treads (P) Ltd., Vs the Kerala State Road Transport Corpn.

Manomohan Vs Viswanathan

Sri.M.J.Varghese & Another Vs Dileep Kumar & Another

K.I.Baby Vs State of Kerala

M/S.Four Square Estates Pvt.Ltd Vs Reality Projects and Entertainments P.Lt

E.K.Prakasan Vs Muthulangayil Kunhabdulla