Allowed

Joisy John v. Dr.Jose Jacob

Kerala HC22 Sept 2016Tr.P(C)/295/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the petition for transfer of a divorce petition filed before the Family Court, Ettumanoor to the Family Court, Ernakulam, holding it necessary in the interest of justice given the parties' residence and representation arrangements.

What did the court decide?

O.P. No. 1317 of 2015 is withdrawn from Family Court, Kottayam and transferred to Family Court, Ernakulam; parties directed to appear before the transferee court on 16.11.2016.

Joisy John Vs Dr.Jose Jacob — Matrimonial and Divorce | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/31ST BHADRA, 1938

¶5

TR.P(C).NO. 295 OF 2016 () ---------------------------

¶6

OP 1317/2015 OF FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM AT ETTUMANOOR

¶7

PETITIONER/RESPONDENT IN OP:

¶8

JOISY JOHN AGED:45 YEARS, D/O M.D.JOHN, 4621 CARLTON CROSSING DR. DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA, CODE-27713, USA, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER DAVIS MANJALY, S/O M.D.JOHN, MANJALY-HOUSE, VENDORE, ALAGAPPA NAGAR, THRISSUR-680302

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.CHERIAN SEBASTIAN SRI.DENY JOSEPH

¶10

RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN OP:

¶11

DR.JOSE JACOB AGED;48 YERARS, S/O V.V. JACOB, VAYALIL HOUSE, VADAYAR VILLAGE, VAIKKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, AT PRESENT WORKING AND RESIDING AT 802-BELL ISLAND ROAD, CURRITUK, NORTH CAROLINA CODE-27929,USA

¶12

R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.A.AUGUSTINE(AREEKATTEL)

¶13

THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22-09-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

TR.P(C).NO. 295 OF 2016

¶15

¶16

PETITIONERS EXHIBIT:

¶17

ANNEXURE A-1:JUDGMENT PASSED IN O.S. NO.597 OF 2012 DATED 31.10.14.

¶18

ANNEXURE A2:COPY OF THE R.F.A NO.204 OF 2015, FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN O.P./RESPONDENT IN TR.O.P. AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN O.S. NO.597 OF 2012 BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

¶19

ANNEXURE A3:COPY OF THE O.P.(DIVORCE) NO.1317 OF 2015 FILED BEFORE FAMILY COURT ETTUMANOOR.

¶20

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A. TO JUDGE

SKV

K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

======================== Transfer Petition (Civil) No.295 of 2016

¶26

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

¶27

Dated this the 22^nd day of September, 2016

¶28

ORDER

¶29

This is an application filed by the petitioner seeking transfer of O.P. No.1317 of 2015 pending before the Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor to the Family Court, Ernakulam under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶30

It is alleged in the petition that the petitioner is the wife of the respondent and she is un employed and residing in U.S.A. The respondent is a Cardiologist Doctor, working in U.S.A. The marriage between the petitioner and respondent was solemnized in 27.08.1986. Thereafter, both of them moved to U.S.A. and two children were born to them in that wedlock. In 2004 respondent filed a case for judicial separation and divorce before District Court at North Carolina in U.S.A. against the petitioner and the District Court at North Carolina allowed the same and they were separated on 12.12.2004 and divorce was effected on 07.06.2006 by that court. There was some other litigation between the parties in respect of the property involved as O.S. 1084 of 2007 and that suit

¶31

Transfer Petition (Civil) No.295 of 2016 -2-

¶32

was disposed of by that court. The petitioner filed O.S.No.597 of 2012 and that suit was decreed as per Annexure A1 judgment against which Annexure A2 appeal preferred as RFA 204 of 2015 which is pending before this Court. In the meantime, respondent herein filed O.P.No.1317 of 2015 before the Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor for divorce as Annexure A3. The petitioner is represented by his power of attorney holder who is residing in Thrissur. Since the case is being contested by her brother and if the case is transferred to Ernakulam court, it will be convenient for both parties as the respondent herein has to come to Ernakulam to contest the case now pending before this Court. Since both were now staying at U.S.A. they do not have any difficulty if that case is transferred to Family Court, Ernakulam as well. Hence this petition.

¶33

Heard Shri. Cherian Sebastian Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri. P. Augustine, counsel appearing for the respondent.

¶34

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the power of attorney holder is residing in Thrissur and civil matter is pending before this Court between the parties, it will be convenient for the petitioner if the case is transferred to Family Court,

¶35

Transfer Petition (Civil) No.295 of 2016 -3-

¶36

Ernakulam. The application was opposed by the counsel for the respondent on the ground that there is no necessity to transfer this case as both were residing in U.S.A. now and petitioner is being represented by power of attorney holder and he will have to go to Kottayam at Ettumanoor or Enrakulam, if the matter is transferred.

¶37

It is an admitted fact that there was some civil litigation between the parties, which resulted in Annexure A1 judgment, which is pending in appeal before this Court evidenced by Annexure A2. It is also an admitted fact that the respondent herein filed O.P.No.1317 of 2015 before Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor for divorce and that is pending before that court. Admittedly, both the petitioner and respondent are residing in U.S.A. The petitioner is represented by her power of attorney holder, who is now residing in Thrissur. No hardship will cause to the respondent if the case is transferred to Ernakulam as he is now at U.S.A and he will have to appear before the Family Court, Ernakulam or before Ettumanoor Court for the purpose of evidence.

¶38

6. Considering the fact that the petitioner is represented

¶39

by her power of attorney holder, who is residing in Thrissur, it will

¶40

Transfer Petition (Civil) No.295 of 2016 -4-

¶41

be convenient for the petitioner if the case is transferred to Family Court, Ernakulam. So considering the circumstances, this Court feels that it is necessary in the interest of justice to transfer O.P.No.1317 of 2015 pending before Family Court Kottayam and Ettumanoor to Family Court, Ernakulam for disposal. Both the counsel submitted that if a date is fixed for appearance of parties, they may appear before the transferee court.

¶42

So the petition is allowed and O.P.No.1317 of 2015 pending before Family Court Ettumanoor is withdrawn and transfer to Family Court, Ernakulam for disposal. Parties are directed to appear before the transferee court viz. Family Court, Ernakulam on 16.11.2016 either personally or through counsel. If their personal presence is required for counselling and mediation, they may also appear in person before the transferee court. Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor is directed to transmit records to Family Court, Ernakulam immediately.

¶43

Registry is directed to communicate this order to both courts immediately.

¶44

K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE

¶45

SKV

Joisy John v. Dr.Jose Jacob

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joisy John v. Dr.Jose Jacob

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

Mathew Vs Cyriac

Thoppasseri Jaleel Vs Deepesh

Sreeja Mahesh Vs Sree Narayana College Staff Co-Operative Society Ltd. No a

Suneera P.S Vs Siddique A.M.

Kseb Vs a.a.Shamsudheen

Leeladevi Amma Vs L Ajith