Dismissed

Baiju Varghese v. Suni Thomas

Kerala HC19 Jan 2009Tr.P(C)/333/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed a transfer petition filed by a husband in a matrimonial dispute. The court refused to transfer the case from the Family Court at Ettumanoor, noting financial constraints and lack of offer by the petitioner to cover the cost of bringing a specialist doctor witness who was required for the respondent.

What did the court decide?

Transfer petition dismissed; case remains at Family Court, Ettumanoor until specialist doctor is examined.

Baiju Varghese Vs Suni Thomas — Matrimonial and Divorce | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 19TH JANUARY 2009 / 29TH POUSHA 1930

¶5

Tr.P(C).No.333 of 2008

¶6

---------------------------OP.1603/2008 of FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM

¶7

PETITIONER/ PETITIONER

¶8

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

¶9

BAIJU VARGHESE, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.LATE V.J.VARGHESE, VILANGATTIL HOUSE, VENNALA. PO., CHALIKKAVATTOM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU SRI.P.G.PRAMOD

¶11

RESPONDENT: RESPONDENT

¶12

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

¶13

SUNI THOMAS, D/O.P.M.THOMAS, AGED 34 YRS PULAYAN PARAMBIL, ALANAD.P.O, PALA, KOTTAYAM.

¶14

ADV. SRI.P.BABU KUMAR FOR R1 SRI.P.YADHU KUMAR FOR R1

¶15

THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

K.P.BALACHANDRAN, J.

¶17

Tr. P.C No.333 of 2008

¶18

Dated this the 19^th day of January, 2009

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Respondent has entered appearance through counsel. Transfer sought for is opposed by the counsel for the respondent on the ground that a Doctor who is employed in a speciality hospital at Ernakulam is required to be examined as a witness on the side of the respondent in O.P.1603/08; that the respondent is not able to bear the expenses or making convenience for the Doctor to travel all the way to Family Court at Ettumanoor and that therefore, at least till the specialist Doctor is examined the case may not be transferred from the Family Court, Ernakulam.

¶21

When counsel for the petitioner is

¶22

asked as to whether the petitioner/husband is paying maintenance for the respondent and her child, counsel pleads ignorance. Counsel for

¶23

-2-

¶24

Tr. P.C No.333 of 2008

¶25

the petitioner also does not offer to meet all the expenses of getting down the Doctor to Family Court, Ettumanoor for examination on the side of the respondent/wife. In the circumstances, it is not a fit case where transfer sought for by the petitioner/husband can be allowed.

¶26

This Transfer Petition is hence, dismissed. It is made clear that the dismissal of this Transfer Petition shall not stand in the way of the petitioner moving for transfer afresh after the specialist Doctor is examined as a witness.

¶27

K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JUDGE

¶28

kns/-

Baiju Varghese v. Suni Thomas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baiju Varghese v. Suni Thomas

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

Ruble Kuriakose Vs Jyothi Thomas

Alpha Raj K Vs Pradeep K.K.

K.P.Jamal Vs the Kerala Financial Corporation

V.Chandran Vs Aliyamma George

P.Ajithkumar Vs Kunnath Rajagopalan

K.T.Joseph Vs Thomas and Others