Partly allowed

K.T.Abraham v. Mariam @ Mary

Kerala HC25 Jun 2008Tr.P(C)/92/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment addressed conflicting transfer petitions regarding pending family litigation between spouses in different districts. The court prioritized the wife's convenience due to maintenance claims and a disabled child, dismissing the husband's petition while allowing the wife's.

What did the court decide?

Transfer Petition 92/2008 dismissed. Transfer Petition 128/2008 allowed. Civil suit withdrawn by husband and transferred to Kottayam Family Court.

K.T.Abraham Vs Mariam @ Mary — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2008 / 4TH ASHADHA 1930 Tr.P(C).No. 92 of 2008() -----------------------MC.81/2008 of FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM ....................

¶4

PETITIONER: ---------------

¶5

K.T. ABRAHAM, S/O.KANNAMBADAMATTATHIL THOMAS, AGED 78 YEARS, KANNAMBADAMATTATHIL VEEDU, IRINGATTIRI POST, PUTHENAZHIKKARA, KARUVARAKUNDU, NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.R.KESAVA KAIMAL SRI.N.M.MADHU

¶6

RESPONDENT: -------------

¶7

MARIAM ALIAS MARY, AGED 68, D/O.KURIAKKO, KUNNATHU VEETTIL, PADINJAREKKARA POST, KADAPLAMATTOM VAZHI, PULIYANNUR VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE FOR R1 SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE FOR R1

¶9

THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/06/2008, ALONG WITH TPC NO. 128 OF 2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶10

ORDER ON I.A. 1050 OF 2008 IN Tr.P(C) 92 OF 2008

¶11

DISMISSED

¶12

25^th June, 2008.

¶13

Sd/- M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE

Okb/-

//True Copy//

P.A. to Judge

M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.

¶18

-----------------------------------------Tr. P(C). NO. 92 OF 2008 AND Tr. P(C). NO.128 OF 2008

¶19

Dated this the 25^th day of June, 2008

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

Husband is the petitioner/Tr. petitioner in 92 of 2008. Wife is the petitioner/Tr. petitioner in 128 of 2008. Husband filed O.P.69 of 2008 for dissolution of marriage, before Family Court, Malappuram. Wife along with disabled son, filed M.C. 81 of 2008 claiming maintenance before Family Court, Kottayam. Wife also filed O.P. 335 of 2008 claiming declaration of her right over certain property as well as for realization of amount from the husband, before Family Court, Kottayam. Transfer Petition 92 of 2008 is filed by the husband to transfer the two cases filed by the wife at Kottayam to Family Court, Malappuram. Wife filed Tr.P.(C) 128 of 2008 to transfer divorce petition filed by the husband and pending before Family Court, Malappuram to Family Court, Kottayam.

¶22

Learned counsel appearing for husband and wife,

¶23

¶24

TrP(C)92/08 & 128/08

¶25

the respective petitioners, were heard.

¶26

The argument of the learned counsel appearing

¶27

for husband is that he is residing on the eastern part of Malappuram district and it takes 12 hours to reach Family Court, Kottayam and in such circumstances the cases pending before Family Court, Kottayam are to be transferred to Family Court, Malappuram. Learned counsel also argued that they have another son at Malappuram and the wife had executed a power of attorney to contest the case at Malappuram and in such circumstances there is no necessity to transfer the case pending at Malappuram to Kottayam and instead cases pending at Kottayam are to be transferred to Malappuram. Learned counsel also argued that if it is not possible, all the cases may be transferred to Family Court, Thrissur, which is in between the two stations, as it will not cause difficulties for the parties.

¶28

Learned counsel appearing for the wife argued

¶29

that they have a disabled son who is also one of the petitioners in M.C. 81 of 2008 and it is not physically or

¶30

TrP(C)92/08 & 128/08

¶31

¶32

financially possible for the wife to travel to Malappuram and contest the case and as two cases are pending before Family Court, Kottayam O.P. pending before Malappuram be transferred to Kottayam.

¶33

Though learned counsel appearing for petitioner husband argued that in view of the dispute, cases be transferred to a Family Court in between the two Family Courts, I do not find it a just or possible solution. It would be causing only further difficulties to the parties. Then the question is whether wife is to be asked to travel to Malappuram or the husband is to be asked to travel to Kottayam. When the convenience of the husband and wife are to be taken into consideration, preference is to be given to that of the wife, especially when one of the cases pending before Family Court, Kottayam is for maintenance. In such circumstances Tr.P(C) 92 of 2008 is dismissed. Tr.P.(C) 128 of 2008 is allowed. O.P. 69 of 2008 on the file of Family Court, Malappuram is withdrawn and transferred to Family Court, Kottayam. It is made clear that if

¶34

TrP(C)92/08 & 128/08

¶35

¶36

conciliation proceedings are over, Family Court, Kottayam shall not insist for the presence of the petitioner on all days and he need only appear on the day when the evidence is to be recorded.

¶37

M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE

¶38

Okb/-

K.T.Abraham v. Mariam @ Mary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.T.Abraham v. Mariam @ Mary

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

Koumary Sankari Vs Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd.

K.T.Thomas Vs Anna @ Akkamma John

Mohanachandran Nair Vs Prince v.Abraham

State of Kerala Vs v.Velappan Nair

Nalinam Vs Harikrishnan

Thankamma Vs Mohadeen Kunju