Allowed

Lalitha v. Vidhya Sagar

Kerala HC12 Aug 2016Tr.P(C)/272/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble High Court of Kerala allowed a transfer petition moving a dissolution of marriage suit from Family Court, Irinjalakkuda to Family Court, Ernakulam. The court considered the petitioner's gender, age, and existing pending litigation in Ernakulam to consolidate hearings. The respondent's age was noted but deemed less critical given counsel representation.

What did the court decide?

OP 328 of 2015 pending before Family Court, Irinjalakkuda transferred to Family Court, Ernakulam for trial along with OP 881 of 2015.

Lalitha Vs Vidhya Sagar — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016/21ST SRAVANA, 1938

¶5

Tr.P(C).No. 272 of 2015 ()

¶6

TO TRANSFER OP 328/2015 OF FAMILY COURT, IRINJALAKUDA TO FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM.

¶7

PETITIONER/RESPONDENT IN OP:

¶8

LALITHA, AGED 68 YEARS, W/O.VIDYASAGAR, RESIDING AT SHRINIVAS, RAJAJI ROAD, ERNAKULAM

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.T.M.RAMAN KARTHA SMT.SYAMA MOHAN

¶10

RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN OP:

¶11

VIDYASAGAR, AGED 67 YEARS, S/O.LATE M.KRISHNANKUTTY MENON, KRISHNA KRIPA, UDAYA CONVENT ROAD, IRINJALAKUDA - 680 125.

¶12

BY ADV.SRI.A.G.ADITYA SHENOY

¶13

THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

mbr/

¶15

Tr.P(C).No. 272 of 2015 ()

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONERS’ ANNEXURES:

¶18

ANNEXURE 1 : TRUE COPY OF O.P.NO.328/2015 OF THE FAMILY COURT, IRINJALAKUDA. ANNEXURE 2 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE IN O.P.NO.328/2015 OF THE FAMILY COURT, IRINJALAKUDA.

¶19

RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL.

¶20

//TRUE COPY//

¶21

P.S. TO JUDGE mbr/

¶22

K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

¶23

===================== Transfer Petition (C). No.272 of 2015 =======================

¶24

Dated this the 12^th day of August, 2016

¶25

ORDER

¶26

This is an application filed by the petitioner seeking transfer of O.P.No.328 of 2015 pending before Family Court, Irinjalakkuda to Family Court, Ernakulam under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶27

It is alleged in the petition that petitioner is the wife of the respondent and their marriage was solemnized on 15.10.2008. After some time, there was some difference of opinion arose between them and thereafter, they started residing separately. The petitioner filed C.M.P.11649 of 2009, which was later numbered as M.C.3 of 2010 under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act and that case was closed later. The petitioner filed O.P. 881 of 2014 for recovery of money and maintenance from the respondent and declaration that she is the absolute owner of the plaint 'A' Schedule property in that case, which was obtained in the joint name of the

¶28

Transfer Petition (C). No.272 of 2015 - 2-

¶29

petitioner and respondent. The respondent had filed O.P. 328 of 2015 for dissolution of marriage, that is now pending before Family Court, Irinjalakkuda. In view of the fact that other cases are pending before the courts at Ernakulam and she is not able to appear before the Family Court, Irinjalakkuda due to personal reasons, to contest the case, she wanted the case pending before Family Court, Irinjalkkuda to Family court, Ernakulam. Hence the petition.

¶30

The respondent filed counter, denying the allegations. According to him, there is no valid reason stated for transfer. Further M.C. No.3 of 2010 has been settled between the parties and that case is not pending. The maintainability of the case before Family Court, Ernakulam has been challenged. Further he is an aged person and he is not able to move due to his old age. So there is no necessity to transfer the case and on the other hand, the petitioner is conducting business concerns. So he can travel and conduct the case. So he prayed for dismissal of the application.

¶31

Heard Shri.T.M. Raman Kartha, Counsel appearing

¶32

Transfer Petition (C). No.272 of 2015 - 3-

¶33

for the petitioner and Shri.K.G. Aditya Shenoy, Counsel appearing for the respondent.

¶34

The Counsel for the petitioner submitted that since she is a lady and already a case is pending before the Family Court, Ernakulam, this case also to be transferred to Family Court, Ernakulam. So that both the cases can be tried by the same court.

¶35

On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondent submitted that there is no valid reason stated for transfer. Further, he is an aged person and he is not in a position to travel and conduct the case. Petitioner is healthy and she can travel and conduct the case at Irinjalakkuda.

¶36

It is an admitted fact that it was the second marriage of the petitioner with the respondent and the marriage was conducted in the year 2008. After some times of the marriage, there was difference of opinion and they started living separately. There was an earlier proceeding under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act as M.C. 3 of 2010 before the Chief

¶37

Transfer Petition (C). No.272 of 2015 - 4-

¶38

Judicial Magistrate's Court, Ernakulam and both counsels submitted that it has been settled between the parties and that case is not pending. It is an admitted fact that the case filed by the petitioner as OP 881 of 2014 is for return of gold ornaments and maintenance and also for declaration of right over the property, which was purchased in the joint names of the petitioner and respondent and that case is pending before Family Court, Ernakulam. It is thereafter that the respondent has filed the present OP 328 of 2015 before the Family Court, Irinjalakkuda for dissolution of marriage. Bot these persons were senior citizens, aged more than 60 years. The petitioner is a lady and already a case filed by her is pending before Family Court, Ernakulam and the respondent had entered appearance and posted for counter statement of the respondent in that case. In such circumstances, it is better that both these cases can be tried in the same court, so it will be convenient for both the parties to contest the case in one court. Further the petitioner being a lady, preference will have to be given to her, as she cannot be asked to go out and contest a case

¶39

Transfer Petition (C). No.272 of 2015 - 5-

¶40

from a place where she is not residing. So considering the circumstances, this Court feels that it is necessary in the interest of justice that OP 328 of 2015 pending before Family Court Irinjalakkuda has to be transferred to Family Court, Ernakulam. Further, the presence of the respondent on all hearing dates need not be necessary. He can even be represented through Counsel and as such, transfer of case is not going to affect him seriously as well. So the petition is allowed and OP 328 of 2015 of Family Court Irinjalakkuda is withdrawn and transferred to Family Court, Ernakulam to be tried along with OP 881 of 2015 pending before that court. The Family Court, Irinjalakkuda is directed to transmit the records to Family Court Ernakulam.

¶41

With the above directions and observations this petition is allowed.

¶42

Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned Court immediately.

¶43

K. RAMAKRISHNAN,JUDGE

¶44

SKV

Lalitha v. Vidhya Sagar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lalitha v. Vidhya Sagar

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

Al Madrasathul Muhammadiya Madrassa Vs Mancheri Abdusamad

Joseph Vs Mary George @ Marykunju

Mukundan Vs Mrs. Sathyabhama

P.v.Moideenkutty Haji Vs Mohammed Koya

M/S. Metro Studio Vs Canara Bank

P.C.Rajan Vs K.Devi