Allowed

Dhanasree v. Dhanesh

Kerala HC2 Sept 2016Tr.P(C)/391/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Transfer petition filed by Dhanasree seeking transfer of OP.No.52/2015 (restitution of conjugal rights) from Family Court, Malappuram to Family Court, Ottapalam under Section 24 CPC to avoid hardship, granted due to respondent's involvement in other pending cases in Ottapalam.

What did the court decide?

Transfer of OP.No.52/2015 from Family Court, Malappuram to Family Court, Ottapalam for disposal and transmission of records.

Dhanasree Vs Dhanesh — Kerala HC (2016) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/11TH BHADRA, 1938

¶5

Tr.P(C).No. 391 of 2016

¶6

OP 52/2015 OF FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM TO FAMILY COURT, OTTAPALAM

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENT:

¶8

DHANASREE,

¶9

AGED 26 YEARS, D/O. MOHANAN, CHOLAPPARAMBIL VEEDU, CHERPULASSERY AMSOM, PANNIYAMKURUSSI DESOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH SRI.Y.JAFAR KHAN

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER:

¶12

DHANESH, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O. RAJESH MOHAN, PETTAMANNA VEEDU, ARAKKUPARAMBU AMSOM, DESOM P.O., PERINTHALMNNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 679 322.

¶13

BY ADVS. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN

¶14

SMT.A.R.PRAVITHA

¶15

THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-09-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

msv/

¶17

TP(C).No. 391 of 2016

¶18

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

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURE

¶21

ANNEXURE A1: TRUE COPY OF ORIGINAL PETITION (O.P.NO.332/2015) FILED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, OTTAPALAM.

¶22

ANNEXURE A2: TRUE COPY OF PETITION DTD.19.1.2015 (C.C.NO.630.2015) FILED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE'S COURT, OTTAPALAM.

¶23

ANNEXURE A3: TRUE COPY OF PETITION DTD.20.1.2015 (O.P.NO.52/2015) FILED BY THE RESPONDENT HEREIN BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM.

¶24

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES:

¶25

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

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE

Msv/

K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

¶30

Tr.P.(C).No.391 of 2016

¶31

....................................................... Dated this the 2^nd day of September, 2016.

¶32

O R D E R

¶33

This petition is filed by the petitioner seeking transfer of OP.52/2015 pending before the Family Court, Malappuram to the Family Court, Ottapalam under section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶34

It is alleged in the petition that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 27.4.2014 and they were residing together as husband and wife for some time and thereafter, they stared living separately. The petitioner is now residing at Cherplassery along with her parents. She filed Annexure- A1 petition as OP.No.332/2015 on the file of the Family Court, Ottapalam for dissolution of marriage. On the basis of the complaint given by her before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ottapalam which was forwarded to the police for investigation and after investigation, final report was filed against the respondent under section 498 A of the India Penal Code and that is pending as CC.No.630/2015 before that court as Annexure-A2. In the meantime, the respondent filed OP.No.52/2015 before the Family Court, Malappuram as Annexure-A3 for restitution of conjugal rights. The petitioner is finding it difficult to go to Malappuram to conduct the case. So it is necessary to transfer the case from the Family Court, Malappuram to the Family Court, Ottapalam.

¶35

¶36

Tr.P.(C).No.391 of 2016

¶37

Hence the petition.

¶38

Heard Sri. Sandeep Ankarath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Mohanakannan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

¶39

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that since there are two other cases pending before Ottapalam court and the respondent is conducting those cases, transferring of OP.No.52/2015 will not cause any hardships to him.

¶40

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the petition.

¶41

It is an admitted fact that Annexure -A1 petition filed by the petitioner as OP.No.332/2015 for divorce is pending before the Family Court, Ottapalam and the respondent had entered appearance and he is conducting the case. Further on the basis of the complaint filed by the petitioner, the matter was referred to the police for investigation and after investigation, final report was filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ottapalam against the respondent alleging offence under section 498 A and it is pending as CC.No.630/2015 and there also he entered appearance and conducting the case.

¶42

It is an admitted fact that the respondent herein filed Annexure-A3 as OP.No52/2015 before the Family Court, Malappuram for restitution of conjugal rights against the

¶43

Tr.P.(C).No.391 of 2016 3

¶44

respondent. Asking a lady to go to Malappuram to conduct the case will cause unnecessary hardships to her as she will have to be accompanied by somebody for that purpose. On the other hand, since there are two other cases pending against the respondent before the courts in Ottapalam where the respondent is appearing and conducting the cases, no hardships will be caused to him if this case is also transferred to the Family Court, Ottapalam. So this court feels that it is necessary in the interest of justice to allow the petition and transfer the case to the Family Court, Ottapalam.

¶45

Hence the petition is allowed and OP.No.52/2015 pending before the Family Court, Malappuram is withdrawn and transferred to the Family Court, Ottapalam for disposal. The family Court, Malappuram is directed to transmit the records to the Family Court, Ottapalam immediately.

¶46

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

¶47

Sd/-

¶48

K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.

¶49

¶50

Tr.P.(C).No.391 of 2016 4

Dhanasree v. Dhanesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhanasree v. Dhanesh

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

Sreedevi G. Vs Ratheesh K.S.

K.R.George Vs the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes

Suseela Vs Sheela

Shyni Vs Sumamkunju

Ramakrishnan Vs Velayudhan

Jagadamma Vs Lekshmikutty Amma Sakunthala