Partly allowed

Anju P v. Deepak Rajan

Kerala HC6 Jul 2009Tr.P(C)/82/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed the transfer of a dissolution of marriage petition from Family Court, Kollam, to Family Court, Trissur to consolidate proceedings and accommodate the wife's power of attorney who is medically unfit to travel. The transfer petition filed by the husband was dismissed. The child's interest and welfare were central considerations.

What did the court decide?

Transfer petition No. 82/2009 allowed (F.O.P No. 846/08 to TCO 846/08). Transfer petition No. 198/2009 dismissed.

Anju P Vs Deepak Rajan — 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. 82 of 2009() -------------------------------------(O.P.(HMA) NO.846/08 OF FAMILY COURT, KOLLAM) ...........

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

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

¶7

ANJU.P.,AGED 26 YEARS,D/O.P.P.BALAN, PADINHAPURATHU HOUSE,DEEPANJALI,TC 11/1290, MANNUTHI,THRISSUR,REP.BY HER FATHER AND POWER HOLDER MR.P.P.BALAN,PADINHAPURATHU HOUSE, AGED 65 YEARS,DEEPANJALI,TC 11/1290, MANNUTHI,THRISSUR.

¶8

BY ADV. MR.K.R.VINOD

¶9

RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------------

¶10

DEEPAK RAJAN,AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.RAJAN,USHAS, KALLELIBHAGOM P.O., KARUNAGAPPILLY P.O., KOLLAM.

¶11

BY ADV. MR.P.V.VENUGOPAL

¶12

THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/07/2009 ALONG WITH Tr.P(C)NO.198 OF 2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

Kss

¶14

S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.

¶15

Tr.P(C) NOs.82 OF 2009 AND 198 OF 2009 -------------------------Dated this the 6^th day of July 2009 -------------------------------------

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

The above petitions have been filed under

¶18

Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Transfer petition No.82/2009 is filed by the wife and the respondent, husband. Transfer petition No.198/2009 is filed by the husband in which the respondents are the wife, the child of the spouses and the father of the wife. The wife has filed two petitions, one for maintenance numbered as O.P 389/2008 before the Family Court, Trissur, under section 125 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the husband claiming maintenance for the child, aged two years, born out of their wedlock. She has filed another petition as O.P 1735/2008 against the husband, that too before the Family Court, Trissur

¶19

Tr.P(C) Nos.82/2009 AND 198/2009 2

¶20

seeking return of the gold ornaments and valuables alleged to have been entrusted with him. The husband has filed another O.P No.846/2008 for dissolution of the marriage before the Family Court, Kollam. The wife seeks transfer of O.P 846/2008 from the Family Court Kollam to the Family Court Trissur whereas the husband seeks transfer of O.P 1735/2008 from the Family Court Trissur to Family Court Kollam.

¶21

2. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and submissions made I find that notice to respondents 2 and 3, the child and father of the wife, are not necessary, and it is dispensed

¶22

with. Father of wife is not a party in any of the proceedings, and child is represented by its mother.

¶23

3. The wife employed abroad is stated to be

¶24

an IT professional, and at present the various proceedings relating to the matrimonial disputes

¶25

Tr.P(C) Nos.82/2009 AND 198/2009 3

¶26

with her husband on her behalf are conducted by her father, who is her power of attorney. It is her case that her father/power of attorney has undergone a bypass surgery and he is not in a position to travel to Kollam where the proceedings initiated by the husband as O.P No.846/2008 is being prosecuted. The learned counsel for the wife would further submit that she is returning home leaving her job abroad by August 2009 and intends to settle down at Trissur with her parents. The only child of the spouses, aged two years, is admittedly under the care and protection of the maternal grand parents who are settled at Trissur. Though the husband has sought for transfer of O.P 1735/2008 on the file of Family Court, Trissur to Family Court, Kollam, he has not requested for transfer of O.P 389/2008, the claim for maintenance made on behalf of the child and that is a circumstance indicating his concern for the child though the spouses have separated for what ever reason that be. But that concern for the child has

¶27

Tr.P(C) Nos.82/2009 AND 198/2009 4

¶28

to be appreciated in the backdrop how the child would be affected if the grandfather the power of attorney of the wife, probably, the only male member of the family is forced to attend the case on behalf of his daughter at a place nearly 250 Kms. away from his residence. Needless to point out the separation of the spouses will be having its impact on the child. At this stage if the care of the grand father also is deprived that would in all probabilities affect her mental and physical growth and wellbeing. The child is at present under the care and protection of the grand parents. I do not find any reason to doubt the submission of the learned counsel for the wife that her father, the power of attorney, has undergone a bypass surgery. If that be so, the interest on justice demand the transfer of O.P 846/2008 from the Family Court Kollam to Family Court Trissur so that the same court will be in a position to adjudicate all the cases. If that Family Court on transfer of cases finds that a joint trial of two or more cases

¶29

Tr.P(C) Nos.82/2009 AND 198/2009 5

¶30

is feasible that course can also be adopted. Further more the transfer of all the cases to one court will be convenient to the parties, avoid loss of precious time of the court and rule out the chance of conflicting decisions, the possibility of which cannot be ruled out if the cases are separately tried in two courts. So Transfer petition 82/2009 is allowed ordering the Family Court Kollam to transfer O.P 846/2008 to the Family Court Trissur. Family Court Kollam to transmit the records of the above case to the Family Court Trissur without delay. Transfer petition 198/2009 is dismissed. The transferee court on receipt of the records of O.P 846/2008 shall give notice to both parties for their appearance.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY//

¶33

vdv

¶34

P.A TO JUDGE

Anju P v. Deepak Rajan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anju P v. Deepak Rajan

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

Chatterjee Vs Subi