Dismissed

Mareena Scaria v. Prince George

Kerala HC11 Jul 2008Tr.P(C)/126/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a civil transfer petition filed by a wife in a restitution of conjugal rights case. Instead of transferring the case to Kottayam, the court directed the Family Court to dispense with the wife's presence on routine posting dates and to require the husband's attendance only upon deposit of travelling expenses.

What did the court decide?

Transfer petition dismissed; Family Court directed to dispense with petitioner's presence except for recording evidence and to insist on respondent-petitioner's presence only upon deposit of travellin

Mareena Scaria Vs Prince George — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 11TH JULY 2008 / 20TH ASHADHA 1930

¶5

Tr.P(C).No. 126 of 2008() ------------------------OP.298/2008 of FAMILY COURT,ERNAKULAM

¶6

PETITIONER:-

¶7

¶8

MAREENA SCARIA, AGED 23 YEARS, W/O PRINCE GEORGE, D/O SCARIA JOSEPH .K, MADAYIL KRIYIL, CHIRAKADAVU P.O., KANJIAPALLY, KOTTYAM.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU SMT.P.A.REZIYA

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

¶12

PRINCE GEORGE, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O M.O. VARKEY, GRACE VILLA, JBS ROAD, ANGAMALY P.O., ANGAMALY.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.S.SUDHISH KUMAR

¶14

THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

ORDER IN I.A.NO.1294/2008 IN Tr.P.(C) No.126/2008

DISMISSED

11.7.2008

SD/=

(M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE.)

¶20

//TRUE COPY//

¶21

P.A. TO JUDGE.

¶22

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.

¶23

Tr.P.(C) No.126 of 2008

¶24

Dated this the 11^th July, 2008.

¶25

O R D E R

¶26

Petitioner is the wife and respondent is husband. This petition is filed to transfer O.P.No.298 of 2008, a petition filed before the Family Court, Ernakulam, for restitution of conjugal rights by the respondent, to Kottayam. The case of petitioner is that she is residing at Chirakadavu and has to travel 110 Kms. to attend Family Court, Ernakulam, and respondent is residing at Angamaly which is only 30 Kms. from Ernakulam and 65 Kms. to Family Court, Kottayam, and in such circumstances, case may be transferred to Family Court, Kottayam.

¶27

Respondent filed a counter affidavit stating that he is working in Bomaby and has to come to Ernakulam by flight and if the case is to be transferred to Kottayam, it will take two more days, and in such circumstances, the transfer would cause much difficulty. It is also contended that distance from the residence of the petitioner to Family Court, Kottayam, is not so near and in such circumstances, there is no reason order transfer.

¶28

Tr.P.(C) No.126/2008

¶29

¶30

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for respondent were heard.

¶31

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that parents of the petitioner are having ailments and cannot accompany petitioner to Ernakulam, and in such circumstances, the case may be transferred to Kottayam.

¶32

The learned counsel appearing for the respondent pointed out that counselling of the case is over and presence of the petitioner is necessary only on the date on which evidence is to be recorded and the respondent is prepared to meet her travelling expenses and in such circumstances, and the case may not be transferred.

¶33

Even according to the petitioner, the distance from the residence of the petitioner to Family Court, Kottayam is 60 Kms. Therefore, even if the case is to be transferred to Family Court, Kottayam, petitioner has to travel a distance of 60 Kms. What she would be saving is distance from Ettumannoor to Ernakulam. Presence of the petitioner is not necessary for each posting date. Family Court

¶34

Tr.P.(C) No.126/2008

¶35

¶36

could be directed to dispense with the presence of the petitioner on all posting dates.

¶37

In such circumstances, I do not find it necessary to order transfer sought for, considering the difficulties expressed by the husband. Family Court, Ernakulam is directed not to insist for the presence of the petitioner, except on the day on which her evidence is to be recorded. When evidence of the petitioner is to be recorded, the Family Court shall direct respondent-petitioner before the Family court, to direct to deposit the travelling expenses by taxi to Family Court, Ernakulam, and only if the amount is deposited, presence of the respondent is to be insisted upon.

¶38

Transfer petition is disposed as above.

¶39

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,

¶40

JUDGE

¶41

nj.

Mareena Scaria v. Prince George

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mareena Scaria v. Prince George

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Kerala Vs Annakkutty Varkey

Pooja Vs Praveen

Sajithkumar.a. Vs Radhika G.R.

K.S.E.Board Vs Sunilkumar

Pathrose @ Kuriachan Vs Mani

M.P.Peter Vs M.C.Jacob