Dismissed

Reena Peter v. Chandipila Shaji

Kerala HC10 Jun 2008Tr.P(C)/208/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner's transfer petition was allowed. A divorce case pending before the Family Court, Thiruvalla was withdrawn and transferred to the Family Court, Ernakulam, as the petitioner resides there. The court noted that if respondents face danger, they can seek protection in the new court.

What did the court decide?

Transfer of O.P.(Div) 519/2007 from Family Court, Thiruvalla to Family Court, Ernakulam.

Reena Peter Vs Chandipila Shaji — Kerala HC (2008) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2008 / 20TH JYAISHTA 1930

¶5

Tr.P(C).No. 208 of 2007() ------------------------OPDIV.519/2007 of FAMILY COURT, THIRUVALLA ....................

¶6

: PETITIONER (RESPONDENT NO. 1 IN THE O.P (DIV)

¶7

¶8

RENA PETER AGED 42 YEARS,

¶9

W/O. CHNDIPILLA SHAJI, RESIDING AT POOKODAN HOUSE, UDAYAMPEROOR.P.O. ERNAKULAM.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.P.M.SAJI

¶11

RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER & RESPONDENT NO.2 IN THE O.P. DIV

¶12

¶13

CHANDIPILLA SHAJI, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O. M.K.CHANDIPILLA, RESIDING AT MATTAPALLIL HOUSE, OMALLUR P.O., CHEEKANAL, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶14

RAJU VARGHESE AGED 45 YEARS, PASTOR,S/O. KUNJUKUNJU, PADIPURATH HOUSE, MULLANIKKATTU, VAZHAUTTOM P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶15

BY ADV. SRI.BASANT BALAJI FOR R1

¶16

SRI.R.GOPAN FOR R1

¶17

THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

ORDER ON I.A.2423/2007 IN Tr.P(C) No.208/2007

¶19

10.6.2008 Dismissed Sd/- M.Sasidharan Nambiar

Judge

/true copy/

P.S to Judge

M.Sasidharan Nambiar,J. ======================= Tr.P(C) No.208 of 2007 =======================

¶24

Dated this the 10th day of June, 2008

¶25

O R D E R

¶26

This petition is filed by the wife to transfer the case O.P.(Div) 519/2007 filed by her husband before Family Court, Thiruvalla to Family Court, Ernakulam. O.P.519/2007 was filed for divorce. Case of petitioner is that it is not possible for her to travel to Thiruvalla and contest the case and with that knowledge the petition was filed at Thiruvalla.Petitioner has also stated that her mother is ailing and there is nobody else to accompany her to Thiruvalla and in such circumstance, the case pending before Family Court, Thiruvalla is to be transferred to Family Court, Ernakulam.

¶27

2.First respondent filed a counter contending that petitioner is not residing at Ernakulam and she had in fact eloped and her brother had filed a complaint and she was produced before the court

¶28

Tr.P.(C)208/2007 2

¶29

from Mangalore where she was working as nurse and

¶30

therefore there is no necessity to transfer the case to Ernakulam. Petitioner has filed an

¶31

affidavit disputing that allegation.

¶32

Learned counsel appearing for petitioner

¶33

and respondents were heard.

¶34

Learned counsel appearing for respondents submits that respondents are apprehending danger to their life if they are to appear before Family Court, Ernakulam. In such circumstance, it is

¶35

submitted that the case may be transferred to some other court.

¶36

On hearing the learned counsel appearing

¶37

for petitioner and respondents, it cannot be disputed that petitioner is residing within the jurisdiction of Family Court, Ernakulam. Her case is that there is nobody else to accompany her and it is not possible physically and financially to

¶38

travel to Thiruvalla and contest the case. As preference has to be given to the difficulties expressed by the wife, case pending before Family

¶39

Tr.P.(C)208/2007

¶40

¶41

Court, Thiruvalla is to be transferred.

¶42

Then the question is whether the case is to be transferred to Ernakulam or to some other Family Court. If the case is to be transferred to some other Family Court, it will be causing difficulty to both husband and wife. If the apprehension of respondents is that there will be danger to their

¶43

life, adequate protection could be sought for.

¶44

In such circumstance, petition is allowed. O.P.(Div)519/2007 pending before Family Court, Thiruvalla is withdrawn and transferred to Family Court, Ernakulam for disposal. If respondents apprehends any danger to their life, they are entitled to apply to the Family Court, Ernakulam for proper protection which shall be accorded.

¶45

M.Sasidharan Nambiar Judge

¶46

tpl/-

¶47

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.

¶48

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

¶49

MARCH,2008

Reena Peter v. Chandipila Shaji

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reena Peter v. Chandipila Shaji

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

George Vs Peeli

Bushra Sulekha Vs Mubarak Hassan

Shajan Vs Kunjappan

Ittirarappan Vs Krishnan

Janaki & Another Vs Sunil & Others

Sunitha Vs Gopalakrishnan Nair & Another