Allowed

Divya v. Krishnakumar

Kerala HC27 Oct 2016Tr.P(C)/389/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This transfer petition sought to move a matrimonial case from Family Court Ottappalam to Family Court Thrissur. The High Court, considering the wife's residence in Thrissur and her difficulty traveling, transferred the case to Thrissur for disposal to suit her convenience and avoid delay.

What did the court decide?

O.P. 72 of 2013 transferred from Family Court Ottappalam to Family Court Thrissur; parties ordered to appear on 06.12.2016.

Divya Vs Krishnakumar — Kerala HC (2016) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/5TH KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

Tr.P(C).No. 389 of 2012

¶6

*** FOR TRANSFERRING OP 420/2010 OF FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD DATED TO FAMILY THRISSUR**

¶7

*** WHEREVER OP.NO.420/2010 APPEARS IS REPLACED AS OP.722013AND NAME OF THE COURTS FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD IS REPLACED AS FAMILY COURT, OTTAPALAM**

¶8

(VIDE ORDER DTD.20.1.2016 IN IA.170/2016)

¶9

PETITIONER(S):

¶10

DIVYA K., D/O.DAMODHARAN EZHUTHACHAN, RESIDING AT KUNNATH HOUSE, EDAKULAM, THANGALUR P.O., MULANKUNNATHUKAVU (VIA), AVANOOR, THRISSUR-680 581.

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH)

¶12

RESPONDENT(S):

¶13

KRISHNAKUMAR, S/O.RAMACHANDRAN, NANNAMKOTTIL HOUSE, LAKKIDI P.O., OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 679 303.

¶14

BY ADVS. SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHARAN PILLAI (VENNELA) SMT.T.T.JAYANTHY

¶15

THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

msv/

¶17

Tr.(C).No. 389 of 2012

¶18

-----------------------

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:

¶21

ANNEXURE I: TRUE COPY OF OP.NO.420/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD DTD.3.6.2010. ANNEXURE II: TRUE COPY OF M.C.NO.357/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR DTD.6.7.2010.

¶22

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURE

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE

msv/

K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

¶28

T.P.(C) No.389 of 2012

¶29

Dated this the 27^th day of October, 2016

¶30

ORDER

¶31

This is a petition filed by the petitioner seeking transfer of O.P.420 of 2010 pending before Family court Palakkad which has been now renumbered as O.P.72 of 2013 of Family Court Ottappalam to Family Court Thrissur under Section 24 of Code of Civil Procedure.

¶32

It is alleged in the petition that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 29.02.2007 and they lived together as husband and wife for sometime and a child was born to them in that wedlock. Thereafter they started residing separately. The respondents filed O.P.420 of 2010 originally before Palakkad for restitution of conjugal rights and in the alternate for judicial separation. Later when Family Court Ottappalam was established, the same was transferred to Family Court Ottappalam and it was renumbered as O.P.P.72 of 2013 of Family Court Ottappalam. The petitioner is residing at Avannur in Thrissur District with the minor child. She filed M.C.No.357 of 2010 seeking maintenance for herself and child. The respondent

¶33

is appearing in that case. She is finding it difficulty to go to

¶34

T.P.(C).389 of 2012 2

¶35

Ottappalam to Conduct the case. So she prayed for transfer the case to Family Court, Thrissur. Hence this petition.

¶36

Heard Shri. Sreekumar Chellur, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri.Chandrasekhara Pillai, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. The counsel for the petitioner argued in support of his case in the petition. The application was opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent on the ground that there is no valid ground made out in the transfer of the case.

¶37

It is an admitted fact that the respondent married the petitioner and the child was born to them in that wedlock. They were residing separately and the child is now residing with the petitioner at Avannur in Thrissur. The respondent originally filed O.P.420 of 2010 before Family Court Palakkad for restitution of conjugal right and in the alternate decree for judicial separation. Later the case was transferred to Family Court Ottappalam where it was re numbered as O.P.72 of 2013. It is also admitted fact that the petitioner filed M.C.No.357 of 2010 before Family Court Thrissur for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for herself and the child. According to her, she is finding it difficult to go to Ottappalam to conduct the case. The

¶38

T.P.(C).389 of 2012 3

¶39

respondent is conducting the maintenance case pending before Family Court, Thrissur. So even if this case is transferred no hardship will be caused to him and he can conduct bot the cases from one court. While considering the question of transfer of matrimonial cases, the place of residence of the wife will have to be considered and the cases will have to be transferred to the place of convenience of the wife so as to suit the convenience of the wife. So under such circumstances, this court feels that it is necessary in the interest of justice to transfer O.P.72 of 2013 (originally filed as O.P.420 of 2010 of Family Court Palakkad) of Family Court Ottappalam to Family Court Thrissur for disposal.

¶40

So the application is allowed and O.P.72 of 2013 (oO.P.420 of 2010 of Family Court Palakkad) pending before Family Court Ottappalam to Family Court Thrissur for disposal. The Family Court Ottappalam is directed to transfer the case to Family Court Thrissur. Both the counsel submitted that if a date is fixed for appearance, they are appeared to appear before the transferee court so as to avoid delay in completing the service. The parties are directed to appear before Family Court Thrissur on 06.12.2016. Considering the fact that the case was originally filed in the year 2010, Family Court Thrissur is directed to take earnest

¶41

T.P.(C).389 of 2012 4

¶42

attempt to expedite disposal of the case after attempting for mediation and counselling as provided in the Family Courts Act and Code of Civil Procedure if necessary, and then dispose of the case within three months from the date of appearance of the parties before that court as fixed by this Court.

¶43

The registry is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court immediately.

¶44

K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE

¶45

SKV

Divya v. Krishnakumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Divya v. Krishnakumar

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

C.Chandra Babu Vs C.Ravindran

Mathew v. Daniel Vs P.M. Salim

Mariya Jasmine Vs Yousaf

Athira V.V. Vs Vinesh Bhaskaran K.B.

Mumthas Vs Abdul Salim

A.T.Alikutty Vs C.Muneer