The High Court of Kerala dismissed an intra-court appeal against a Single Judge's order refusing to transfer a Family Court maintenance case. The Court held that ends of justice were satisfied by the Single Judge's discretionary power, warranting no interference.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
MONDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JULY 2015/29TH ASHADHA, 1937
Tr.Appeal(C).No. 4 of 2015 ()
AGAINST THE ORDER IN Tr.P(C) 228/2015 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 28.5.2015 APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER:
SINIMOL N, D/O.NARAYANAN, RESIDING AT MADATHATTU HOUSE, AYAVANA P.O, ERANALLOOR VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.GEORGEKUTTY MATHEW
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT:
ASHOK KUMAR V.S., S/O.VELAYUDHAN NAIR, RESIDING AT APSARA, MUTTUCAUD P.O, VENGANOOR, KOVALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-695 523.
R BY SRI.AYYAPPAN SANKAR
THIS TRANSFER APPEAL(CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-07-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
DG
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN &
SUNIL THOMAS, JJ.
Tr. A (C).No.4 of 2015
------------------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 20th day of July, 2015
J U D G M E N T
Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.
2.The appellant is the wife. Going by the materials, the matrimonial home was in Thiruvananthapuram. She sued the husband for maintenance by instituting an M.C case with the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. During the course of proceedings for divorce, it appears that mediation proceedings were also carried before the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The wife, thereafter, pleaded that she has lost her job at Thiruvananthapuram and has shifted from the rented premises to the family house in Muvattupuzha. The learned single Judge took the view that since the trial is all
2
Tr.A(C).No.4/15
that remains and recording of evidence can be done on a particular day as may be chosen by the petitioner before us, there is no reason to transfer the case. We think that ends of justice stands satisfied by due exercise of discretionary power by the learned single Judge while dealing with the transfer application. The impugned order does not merit interference in an intra court appeal. No further directions or orders are called for. This appeal, therefore, fails.
In the result, this appeal is dismissed in limine.
Sd/-
(THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE)
Sd/- (SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE)
//TRUE COPY//
P.A TO JUDGE
DG
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Single Judge correctly refused to transfer a Family Court proceeding to another location.
Whether the impugned order refusing transfer warrants interference in an intra-court appeal.
SINIMOL N
ASHOK KUMAR V.S.
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
SUNIL THOMAS
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
