Dismissed

Chatterjee v. Subi

Kerala HC6 Jul 2009Tr.P(C)/103/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed two transfer petitions filed under Section 24 CPC seeking transfer of matrimonial matters from the Family Court, Ernakulam to Alapuzha. The court held that no grounds for transfer were established as the petitioners raised jurisdictional questions via separate petitions filed after initiating transfer applications.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners requested transfer of O.P. 261/2009 and O.P. 264/2009 to Family Court, Alapuzha.

Chatterjee Vs Subi — Matrimonial and Divorce | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 6TH JULY 2009 / 15TH ASHADHA 1931

¶4

Tr.P(C).No. 103 of 2009() ---------------------------------OP.264/2009 of FAMILY COURT,ERNAKULAM ....................

¶5

PETITIONER/RESPONDENT IN OP

¶6

-----------------------------------------------CHATTERJEE, MURALI SADANAM, ARUNOOTTIMANGALAM P.O., VETTIYAR VILLAGE, MAVELIKARA.

¶7

BY ADV. MR.RINNY STEPHEN CHAMAPARAMPIL

¶8

RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN OP

¶9

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

¶10

SUBI, POKKATTU G.N.BHAVAN, OLAKETTIYAMBALAM P.O., MAVELIKARA FROM MURALI SADANAM, ARUNOOTTIMANGALAM P.O., VETTIYAR VILLAGE, MAVELIKARA, NOW RESIDING AT DEVI DHAVANAM, HOUSE NO.44/366, MAY IST ROAD, OPP. TO D.D.VILLAGE, THAMMANAM, ERNAKULAM.

¶11

BY ADV. MR.T.M.RAMAN KARTHA .

¶12

THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/07/2009, ALONG WITH TPC NO. 101 OF 2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

rs.

¶14

S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.

¶15

Tr.P(C)NOs.101 OF 2009 AND 103 OF 2009 --------------------------------------Dated this the 6^th day of July 2009

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

These petitions are filed for transfer

¶18

under Section 24 of Code of Civil Procedure. In

¶19

Transfer petition No.101/2002 there are two petitioners, and the first petitioner thereof has filed the other Transfer petition as 103/2009. The first petitioner in the above petitions is the husband, and common respondent, the wife. Second petitioner in 101/2009 is the mother of the first petitioner. Transfer petition 101/2009 has been filed for transfer of O.P 261/2009, filed by the wife for return of her ornaments and valuables from her husband and mother-in-law, the respondents in that petition, from the Family Court, Ernakulam. The other Transfer petition 103/2009 relates to O.P

¶20

Tr.P(C)NOs.101/2009 AND 103/2009 2

¶21

264/2009 for dissolution of marriage filed by the wife against the husband, that too pending before the Family Court, Ernakulam. These petitions have been filed seeking transfer of the above petitions (O.P 261/2009 and O.P 264/2009) to the Family Court Alapuzha.

¶22

2. Notice being given, the wife has entered

¶23

appearance and filed counter.

¶24

2. I heard the counsel on both sides. At the

¶25

time of hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the husband has filed petitions in both the petitions (O.P 261/2009 and also O.P 264/2009) contending that the Family Court, Ernakulam has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petitions. Direction from this court for an early consideration of those petitions by the Family Court, Ernakulam alone is canvassed by the

¶26

¶27

learned counsel for the petitioners. The learned counsel for the wife submitted that the petitions referred to by the counsel for the husband have been filed after moving of these transfer petitions.

¶28

4. A transfer petition is not the proper course to seek a direction from this court for consideration

¶29

of the question of jurisdiction raised before the trial court. The question of jurisdiction was raised by filing separate petitions, after moving the transfer petitions, and, that alone is canvassed , for consideration for issue of direction to court below for examining that question, prima facie indicate that the petitioners want to keep alive the issue of transfer for being taken at the appropriate stage and not now in the present transfer petitions.

¶30

No ground has been canvassed at the time of hearing for transfer of the petitions prayed for, and the petitions are only to be dismissed. However there

¶31

¶32

will be a direction to the court below to consider the petitions filed questioning the jurisdiction preliminarily, provided it can be decided without taking evidence. In case the court finds that the question of jurisdiction is entangled with the facts in issue it is free to consider that question with other questions arising for determination after trial. Petitioners have not made out any ground for transfer, and the petitions are dismissed subject to the observations made above.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE

¶35

//TRUE COPY//

¶36

P.A TO JUDGE

¶37

vdv

Chatterjee v. Subi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chatterjee v. Subi

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

Shine Kumar Vs James & Others

Nazeema Vs K.M.Nazeer

K.G.Sunil Dutt Vs Fr. K.P.Varghese and Others

E.Kunhikrishnan Nair Vs Komath Puthiyaveetil Balakrishnan Nair

Sheela Vs Maheswaran & Others

Anju P Vs Deepak Rajan