Dismissed

Sarala Catherine Mundassery v. Jose Mundassery

Kerala HC3 Aug 2012Tr.Appeal(C)/1/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Transfer Appeal challenged the dismissal of an application to transfer a Family Court suit from Thrissur to Ernakulam. The bench held that with improved transport, no inconvenience exists for parties in Thrissur and found no ground to interfere with the lower court's refusal to transfer.

What did the court decide?

Transfer application refused; appeal dismissed. No costs.

Sarala Catherine Mundassery Vs Jose Mundassery — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN

¶4

& THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶5

FRIDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF AUGUST 2012/12TH SRAVANA 1934

¶6

Tr.Appeal(C).No. 1 of 2012 ( )

¶7

TR.PC NO. 25/2012 IN OP.1623/2010 of FAMILY COURT,THRISSUR

¶8

APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER IN TR.P.C.:

¶9

SARALA CATHERINE MUNDASSERY, EX-WIFE OF JOSE MUNDASSERY,AGED 71 YEARS, PUTHIYAKULANGARA HOUSE,VAZHAKULAM,VIA MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,NOW RESIDING AT 69,WOODMONT DRIVE, LAWRENCEVILLE,NEW JERSEY 08648,USA.

¶10

BY ADVS.DR.SEBASTIAN CHAMPAPPILLY SMT.ANNIE GEORGE

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1. JOSE MUNDASSERY,

¶13

S/O.JOSEPH MUNDASSERY,AGED 72 YEARS, MUNDASSERY BHAVAN,KIZHAKKUMBATTUKARA,THRISSUR-680005, FORMERLY RESIDING AT 363,WENDOVER DRIVE,PRINCTON NEW JERSEY-08540,USA.

¶14

2. FRANCIS THOMAS, MANAGING DIRECTOR, KUNNATH PAPER MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED, REGD.OFFICE:T.C.26/1314/12,PAS BUILDING,II FLOOR, PALAKKAL ANGADI,THRISSUR-680001.

¶15

3. K.P.THOMAS(AMON KUNNATH), KUNNATH PAPER MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED, REGD.OFFICE:T.C.26/1314/12 PAS BUILDING,II FLOOR, PALAKKAL ANGADI,THRISSUR-6800001.

¶16

4. K.C.PAVOO, KUNNATH PAPER MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED,REGD.OFFICE, T.C.26/1314/12,PAS BUILDING,II FLOOR, PALAKKAL ANGADI,THRISSUR-680001.

¶17

5. PAUL A.KUNNATH, KUNNATH PAPER MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED, REGD.OFFICE:T.C.26/1314/12,PAS BUILDING,II FLOOR, PALAKKAL ANGADI,THRISSUR-680001.

¶18

LSN

¶19

Tr.Appeal(C).No. 1 of 2012 ( )

¶20

6. THOMAS.A.KUNNATH, KUNNATH PAPER MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED, REGD.OFFICE:T.C./26/1314/12,PAS BUILDING,II FLOOR, PALAKKAL ANGADI,THRISSUR-680001.

¶21

BY ADV. SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS BY ADV. SMT.P.K.PRIYA BY ADV. SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN BY ADV. SMT.GEETHA P.MENON BY ADV. SRI.N.AJITH BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN

¶22

THIS TRANSFER APPEAL(CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03-08-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

LSN

¶24

Tr.Appeal(C).No. 1 of 2012 ( )

¶25

APPENDIX

¶26

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURE:

¶27

ANNX A-1: A TRUE OF O.P.NO. 1623/2010 PENDING BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR.

¶28

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURE: NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

LSN

Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan

¶33

¶34

K.Vinod Chandran, JJ.

¶35

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Tr.Appeal.No.1 of 2012

¶36

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

¶37

Dated this the 3rd day of August, 2012.

¶38

Judgment

¶39

Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.

¶40

1.The petitioner filed O.P.No.1623 of 2010 before the Family Court, Thrissur. She says that she resides in United States of America. She has a power of attorney holder, who is residing in Ernakulam. Having invoked the jurisdiction of the Thrissur Family Court, the petitioner thereafter moved this Court by filing an application for transfer of that case to the Family Court, Ernakulam. The learned single Judge has dismissed that application as per the impugned order.

¶41

2.The only ground that is projected for transfer of case from Thrissur to Ernakulam is that the petitioner's power of attorney holder is residing

¶42

TAC1/12 -: 2 :-

¶43

in Ernakulam and it will be convenient for her, who is also stated to be a senior citizen, to prosecute the litigation from Ernakulam and that such a transfer will not be prejudicial to the interest of the respondents.

¶44

3.Having regard to the distance from Ernakulam to Thrissur and the National Highway which has now been put up, as also the support system through Indian Railways, we do not see that there is any inconvenience to any party to travel to the Thrissur Family Court and have the case conducted.

¶45

4.We have also looked into the contentions between the parties. The claim of the petitioner appears to be that she has an interest over some of the assets of the first respondent who, according to her, is her former husband. The claim is in relation to shareholdings of that person in one or two companies. It is also stated that there was some litigation in a court in America and there are orders or undertakings between the parties. We have not gone into those issues. We also leave open the question of maintainability of the main matter under the Family Courts Act, 1984.

¶46

TAC1/12 -: 3 :-

¶47

5.With all the aforesaid, we do not find any ground to interfere with the decision of the learned single Judge refusing to transfer the case from the Family Court, Thrissur to Family Court, Ernakulam.

¶48

In the result, this appeal fails. The same is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

¶49

Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge.

¶50

K.Vinod Chandran, Judge.

¶51

Sha/040812

Sarala Catherine Mundassery v. Jose Mundassery

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarala Catherine Mundassery v. Jose Mundassery

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

Kitex Garmets Ltd. Vs the Superintendent of Police

P.v.Varghese Vs Sri.K.H.Andulla

Travancore Devaswom Board Vs the Deputy Director Local Fund Audit

N.Sudhakran Vs State of Kerala

T.C.Kochuthuppu Vs a.Muraleedharan

State of Kerala Vs Chairman, Met'S School of Engineering