Allowed

Chinchu Abraham v. Boby

Kerala HC18 Nov 2016Tr.P(C)/399/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Transferred a civil suit for restitution of conjugal rights from Family Court, Kollam to Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram, where a divorce petition between the same parties is pending, citing convenience and necessity to avoid hardship to a housewife petitioner.

What did the court decide?

O.P. No. 679 of 2016 before Family Court, Kollam transferred to Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram to be tried along with OPIDA No. 1121 of 2016. Records directed to be transmitted.

Chinchu Abraham Vs Boby — 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 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/26TH KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

Tr.P(C).No. 399 of 2016 ()

¶6

--------------------------OP 679/2016 of FAMILY COURT,KOLLAM TO THE FAMIY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

CHINCHU ABRAHAM AGED:36 YEARS, D/O K.P.ABRAHAM, RESIDING AT T.C. 10/1772(4), KANJIRATHUMMOOTTIL, PUNNARATHOPPU, NALANCHIRA-P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695015

¶9

BY ADV. SMT.M.HEMALATHA

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

BOBY.A., S/O. ANTONY, BIJU BHAVAN, PERAYAM, MULAVANA P.O., KOLLAM - 691503.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH. K.RAJU BY ADV. SRI.S.SURESH BOSE

¶13

THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17-11-2016,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

¶15

Tr.P(C).No. 399 of 2016 ()

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES :

¶18

ANNEXURE 1: COPY OF THE PETITION IN OP(IDA) NO. 1121 OF 2016, FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ANNEXURE 2: COPY OF THE PETITION IN P NO.679 OF 2016 FAMILY COURT, KOLLAM.

¶19

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES : NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

=================== Transfer Petition (Civil)No.399 of 2016

¶25

======================= Dated this the 17^th day of November, 2016

¶26

ORDER

¶27

This is an application filed by the petitioner seeking transfer of O.P.No.679 of 2016 pending before Family Court, Kollam to Family Court Thiruvananthapuram under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶28

It is alleged in the petition that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent ws solemnized on 08.09.2004 at Powdikonam in thiruvananthapuram District and they were living together as husband and wife at Nalanchira in Thiruvananthapuram District and a child was born to them in that wedlock. After some time, their relationship strained and they are now residing separately. Petitioner is residing along with her parents with the child. The petitioner filed OPIDA 1121 of 2016 before Family Court Thiruvananthapuram for divorce. The respondent filed O.P.679 of 2016 before Family court, kollam for restitution of conjugal rights. According to the petitioner she is finding it difficult to go to Kollam to conduct the case and prays for transfer. Hence this petition.

¶29

Head Smt. M. Hemalatha, learned counsel for the

¶30

T.P.(C). No.399 of 2016 2

¶31

petitioner and Sri. Rajesh K. Raju learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

¶32

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner will have to travel along with the child and it is difficult for her to go to Kollam to conduct the case. The Family court Thiruvananthapuram will be convenient for both the parties. This has opposed by the counsel for the respondent.

¶33

It is an admitted fact that the petitioner and respondent are wife and husband and their marriage was solemnized in the year 2004 and a child was born to them in that wedlock. After some time they are residing separately and the petitioner is now residing with her parents with the child at Nalanchira in Thiruvananthapuram District. The respondent filed O.P.No.679 of 2016 before Family Court Kollam for restitution of conjugal rights while the petitioner filed OPIDA 1121 of 2016 before Family Court Thiruvananthapuram for divorce. The respondent is working as Village Officer. Petitioner is without any employment and she is depending on her parents for her maintenance and child's welfare. Asking such a lady to go to Kollam will cause unnecessary hardship to her. Since another case is pending before Family Court Thiruvananthapuram between the same parties, if this case

¶34

is also transferred to Thiruvananthapuram, no hardship will be

¶35

T.P.(C). No.399 of 2016 3

¶36

caused to the husband, who can conduct both the cases from one court. Considering the circumstances, this court feels that it is necessary in the interest of justice to transfer O.P.No.679 of 2016 pending before Family Court, Kollam to Family Court Thiruvananthapuram.

¶37

So the application is allowed and O.P.679 of 2016 pending before Family Court Kollam is withdrawn and transferred to Family Court Thiruvananthapuram to be tried along with OPIDA1121 of 2016 pending before that court. If joint trial application is filed by either of the parties, that court can consider and pass appropriate orders on that application. The Family Court Kollam is directed to transmit the records to Family court Thiruvananthapuram immediately.

¶38

Both the counsel submitted if a date is fixed for appearance, they are prepared to appear before the transferee court. The parties are directed to appear before the Family court Thiruvananthapuram on 20.12.2016.

¶39

Registry is directed to communicate this order to concerned court immediately.

¶40

K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE

¶41

SKV

Chinchu Abraham v. Boby

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chinchu Abraham v. Boby

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

M/S. Periyanayaki Project Private Limited Vs Raveendran

Bhasi Vs Viji Babu

Muthoot Leasing and Finance Ltd. Vs Amina Bai

Seema Vs Vinod Kumar

Anand Kumar K. Vs Koustobham Finance

Anand Kumar.K Vs Kausthabham Finance and Kuries