Allowed

Dr. Prejusha.R v. Dr. Vivek.S

Kerala HC1 Nov 2016Tr.P(C)/314/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge order transferring a restitution of conjugal rights case from Family Court, Muvattupuzha to Family Court, Kozhikode. The court prioritized the wife's convenience, noting her residence with children in Kozhikode versus the husband's work and health constraints in Muvattupuzha, allowing the transfer exception.

What did the court decide?

Transfer of OP No. 280/2016 from Family Court, Muvattupuzha to Family Court, Kozhikode ordered; records to be transmitted immediately and parties directed to appear before transferee court.

Dr. Prejusha.R Vs Dr. Vivek.S — 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

TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/10TH KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

Tr.P(C).No. 314 of 2016

¶6

OP 280/2016 OF FAMILY COURT, MOOVATTUPUZHA -------------

¶7

PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: ----------------------

¶8

DR. PREJUSHA.R, AGED 33, D/O.T.V. RAJAGOPALAN, CHAITHRAM, OPP. VRINDAVAN COLONY, P.O. CHEVAYUR, KOZHIKODE-673017.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.HARISH R. MENON SRI.K.T.SHYAMKUMAR

¶10

RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: ----------------------

¶11

DR. VIVEK.S, S/O.A.N. SUKUMARAN NAIR, AGED 37, RESIDING T AMBATTUKUNNEL HOUSE, COLLEGE JUNCTION, KOTHAMANGALAM P.O. ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-686691.

¶12

BY ADVS. SRI.S.VINOD BHAT SRI.LEGITH T.KOTTAKKAL

¶13

THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

K.V.

¶15

TR.PC NO 314/2016:

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONERS ANNEXURES:

¶18

ANNEXURE 1: COPY OF THE ORIGINAL PETITION NO 280/2016 ON THE FILE OF FAMILY COURT MOOVATTUPUZHA.

¶19

RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

K.V.

K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

¶24

....................................... Tr.P.(C).No.314 of 2016

¶25

........................................ Dated this the 1^st day of November, 2016.

¶26

O R D E R

¶27

This is a petition filed by the petitioner seeking transfer of OP.No.280/2016 on the file of the Family Court, Muvattupuzha to the Family Court, Kozhikode under section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶28

It is alleged in the petition that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 1.1.2006 at Kozhikode and they lived together as husband and wife at Kothamangalam and thereafter at Pondicherry. Two children were born to them in that wedlock. After some time, there was some misunderstanding arose between the parties and they started residing separately. The petitioner is now residing with the children at Kozhikode along with her parents. The respondent filed OP.No.280/2016 before the Family Court, Muvattupuzha for restitution of conjugal rights. She is finding it difficult to go to Muvattupuzha to conduct the case. Though for some time she got an employment in a hospital at Muvattupuzha, since she is finding it difficult to stay there, she went to Kozhikode to stay along with her parents. Hence this petition has been filed for transfer.

¶29

Heard Sri.Harish R. Menon, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.S. Vinod Bhat, learned counsel appearing for

¶30

Tr.P.(C).No.314 of 2016

¶31

¶32

the respondent.

¶33

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is now residing along with her parents with the minor children. She is finding it difficult to go to Muvattupuzha to conduct the case. So she prayed for allowing the petition.

¶34

On the other hand, the petition was opposed by the counsel for the respondent on the ground that the respondent is an Ophthalmology Surgeon in a hospital at Muvattupuzha and it is difficult for him to go to Kozhikode to conduct the case. Since he had undergone a liver transplantation operation, it is difficult for him to travel also. So he prayed for dismissal of the petition.

¶35

It is an admitted fact that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized at Kozhikode on 1.1.2006 and two children were born to them in that wedlock. It is not in dispute that after the marriage, they resided together at Kothamangalam and thereafter at Pondicherry. After some time, difference of opinion arose between them. Even at the time when they were living together, the petitioner who is a Dentist got an employment in a hospital at Muvattupuzha. The respondent is an Ophthalmologist doing his work at Muvattupuzha. When difference of opinion arose between them, she had to leave the matrimonial home along with the children and now she is residing with her parents at Kozhikode. It is thereafter that the respondent filed

¶36

Tr.P.(C).No.314 of 2016 3

¶37

OP.No.280/2016 before of the Family Court, Muvattupuzha for restitution of conjugal rights. Though the matter was referred for mediation for settlement, the same failed. The grievance of the respondent was that being an Ophthalmology surgeon, it is difficult for him to go to Kozhikode to conduct the case. It is also submitted that he underwent a liver transplantation surgery and it is not possible for him to travel. It may be mentioned here that his presence is not required on all days and he can be represented by the counsel as well. But asking a lady with two children, who is residing with hear parents at Kozhikode to come to Muvattupuzha to conduct the case will cause unnecessary hardship to her. It is settled law that in a case where the transfer of matrimonial cases has to be considered, the place of convenience of the wife will have to be considered than the place of convenience of the husband unless there are extraordinary circumstances made out for that purpose. No such extraordinary circumstance has been made out in this case. So considering the circumstances, this court feels that it is necessary in the interest of justice to transfer OP.No.280/2016 pending before the Family Court, Muvattupuzha to the Family Court, Kozhikode for disposal.

¶38

So the petition is allowed. OP.No.280/2016 pending before the Family Court, Muvattupuzha is withdrawn and transferred to the Family Court, Kozhikode for disposal. Both the counsel

¶39

Tr.P.(C).No.314 of 2016

¶40

¶41

submitted that if a date is fixed for appearance, they are prepared to appear before the transferee court on that date. So parties are directed to appear before the FamilyCourt, Kozhikode on 6.12.2016. The Family Court, Muvattupuzha is directed to transmit the records to the Family Court, Kozhikode immediately. The Family Court, Kozhikode is directed to permit the respondent herein, who is the petitioner in that court, to appear through counsel on regular postings and insist for his presence only when personal appearance is required for counselling, mediation and trial of case etc.

¶42

Registry is directed to communicate a copy of this order to both the courts immediately.

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.

¶45

Dr. Prejusha.R v. Dr. Vivek.S

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Prejusha.R v. Dr. Vivek.S

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

Beena Vs Prabhuraj

M/S.Malayalam Communications Ltd. Vs M/S.Opm Dream Mill Cinemas and Entertainment Ltd.

Mohandas Vs Muhammed Ali

Dr. Blessy Mathew Vs Varghese. P.J

M/S Chemmarathil Cashew Co. Vs M/S Chi Commodities Handlers Inc.

Fr.Manoj Varghese Vs St. George Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Church