Dismissed

Akhila v. Kiran

Kerala HC8 Jul 2016Tr.P(C)/135/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court dismissed the petitioner's transfer petition seeking to move a restitution of conjugal rights case from Ernakulam to Irinjalakuda Family Court. The Court held that mere apprehension of threat, without supporting material or prior resort to protection authorities, is insufficient grounds for transfer, especially since the parties are not lawfully married.

What did the court decide?

The transfer petition for moving the original petition is dismissed. The original case remains pending before the Family Court, Ernakulam.

Akhila Vs Kiran — Matrimonial and Divorce | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JULY 2016/17TH ASHADHA, 1938

¶5

Tr.P(C).No. 135 of 2015

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OP 2110/2014 of FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM.

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

AKHILA, AGED 24 YEARS, D/O.MURALI BABU, KATTUKKAL HOUSE, KOODAPPUZHA DESOM, CHALAKKUDY VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.C.P.PRADEEP

¶10

RESPONDENT:

¶11

KIRAN, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.SAJEEVAN, AIKKARA HOUSE, KUMBALAM DESOM, THRIPPUNITHURA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶12

THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-07-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

Tr.P(C).No. 135 of 2015

¶14

APPENDIX

¶15

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶16

ANNEXURE - A1 - TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, IRINJALAKUDA.

¶17

ANNEXURE - A2 - TRUE COPY OF THE O.P.NO.2110/2014 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM.

//true copy//

P.S. to Judge

K. HARILAL, J.

-----------------------------------------------------Tr.P. (C) No.135 of 2015

¶22

-----------------------------------------------------Dated this the 8^th day of July, 2016

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The petitioner is a student completed her B.Sc. Physics Course from Cochin College, Mattancherry. The respondent is also a student of that college. During the period of college days, the petitioner and the respondent became close friends and the petitioner herein was not able to realise the real motive of the respondent. According to the petitioner, the respondent emotionally and unduly influenced the petitioner and thereby she was constrained to sign some papers. Later, the petitioner came to know that, by misusing the signed papers of the petitioner, somehow, the respondent managed to obtain a Marriage Certificate with respect to the petitioner and the respondent. Immediately, the petitioner and her parents complained these facts to the authorities and also filed an

¶25

Tr.P. (C) No. 135 of 2015

¶26

-: 2 :-

¶27

Original Petition before the Family Court, Irinjalakuda, for dissolving the illegal and fraudulent Certificate of Marriage obtained by the respondent.

¶28

The petitioner further submits that there is no husband and wife relationship between the petitioner and the respondent. The petitioner never married the respondent and the respondent falsely fabricated a Marriage Certificate from the Registrar's Office using the signed papers of the petitioner. Subsequently, the respondent filed O.P.No.2110/2014 before the Family Court, Ernakulam, under Sec.22 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 for restitution of Conjugal rights.

¶29

According to the petitioner, the real motive in filing the aforesaid case before the Family Court, Ernakulam, is to drag in the matter to Ernakulam, which is his native place, so as to make it easy and convenient to destroy the petitioner's life by physical assault. The petitioner strongly apprehends that there is every possibility of kidnapping her by the respondent. On the above premises, she prayed for an order transferring the aforesaid O.P.No.2110/2014 from the Family Court, Ernakulam, to the Family Court,

¶30

Tr.P. (C) No. 135 of 2015

¶31

-: 3 :-

¶32

Irinjalakuda.

¶33

Admittedly, according to the petitioner, she is not the wife of the respondent and the Marriage Certificate is a fabricated one. Merely on the reason that the case is pending before the Family Court, the petitioner is not entitled to get an order transferring the case, according her convenience, as the marital status is not admitted, Where there is a matrimonial dispute between the husband and the wife, the convenience of the wife shall be considered in conducting the case; according to the various decisions of the Apex Court. But, here, according to the petitioner, she is not the wife of the respondent. So, she will not get the privilege of a wife in a matrimonial dispute, before the Family Court.

¶34

The apprehension that her life will be in danger, if she appears at Ernakulam, cannot be believed, without any supporting material. Even if such a threat is real, she is at liberty to seek appropriate remedies before the competent authorities, who are liable to give protection to the life and property of a citizen; but the petitioner has not resorted to such remedies and that shows the lack of bona fides. In

¶35

Tr.P. (C) No. 135 of 2015 -: 4 :-

¶36

short, the mere apprehension of threat alone cannot be taken as a ground to transfer the case from one court to another court. Thus, this Court is not satisfied with the grounds raised, to transfer the case, in this petition.

¶37

Consequently, this Tr.P.C. will stand dismissed.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

(K. HARILAL, JUDGE)

¶40

Nan/

¶41

//true copy//

¶42

P.S. to Judge

Akhila v. Kiran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akhila v. Kiran

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

K.C.Antony Vs Vijayan

Chinnamuth @ Abdul Khader Vs Saithoon

Fathima Vs M/S. Muthoot Leasing and Finance Limited

Saifunnisa Vs Abdul Muizee

T.T.Philip @ Monichan Vs Thomas John

Bella Sathyanarayana Vs P.S.Praveen Kumar