Dismissed

Laijumol v. Haroon

Kerala HC8 Nov 2016Tr.P(C)/403/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought transfer of a restitution of conjugal rights petition from Family Court, Alappuzha to Thodupuzha. The court dismissed the transfer petition as unnecessary since the husband, who filed the suit in the lower court, expressed no interest in prosecuting it. The respondent's liberty to seek transfer again remains unaffected. Liberties granted where interest is lacking.

What did the court decide?

Transfer petition dismissed as not necessary given the respondent husband's lack of interest in prosecuting the underlying case.

Laijumol Vs Haroon — 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 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/17TH KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

Tr.P(C).No. 403 of 2016

¶6

OP 786/2015 OF FAMILY COURT, ALAPPUZHA

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

LAIJUMOL, AGED 33 YEARS, D/O AKBAR ALI, VANIYAPURAYIL HOUSE, EDAVETTI P.O, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.P.SHANES METHAR SRI.K.NAJEEB

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

HAROON, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O ABDULKHADER, KODITHARA VEEDU, THRICHATTUKULAM P.O, PARAYATHUKONAM P.O, ATTINGAL, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA 688 012.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.P.M.PAREETH

¶13

THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

¶15

Tr.P(C).No. 403 of 2016 ------------------------

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES ----------------------

¶18

ANNEXURE I: COPY OF THE OP.786/15 OF THE FAMILY COURT, ALAPPUZHA ANNEXURE II: COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED FROM THE FAMILY COURT ALAPPUZHA.

¶19

RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURE --------------------NIL. / TRUE COPY / P.S. TO JUDGE PJ

¶20

K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J

¶21

¶22

Dated this the 8^th day of November 2016

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

This is an application filed by the petitioner seeking transfer in OP 786/2015 of Family Court, Alappuzha to Family Court Thodupuzha under section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶25

When the petition came up for hearing today, Sri.P.M.Pareeth who entered appearance for respondent (husband) submitted that in view of the subsequent events happened he is not interested in prosecuting OP.786/2015 pending before Family Court, Alappuzha and he will be making arrangement to not press the application as that was filed for restitution of conjugal rights and there is no possibility for the petitioner coming and living with the petitioner. Since the petitioner in the court below who is the respondent herein is not interested in prosecuting the case, this court feels that there is no necessity to transfer the case as prayed for in the petition. The above submissions are recorded and the

¶26

Tr.P(C)No.403 OF 2016 2 petition is dismissed as not necessary in view of the fact that the husband who filed the petition by the court below is not interested in prosecuting the petition before the Family Court, Alappuzha. If the respondent did not withdraw that petition, then the liberty of the petitioner to come to this court for transfer again is not affected by the dismissal of this petition.

¶27

Registry is directed to communicate this order to Family Court, Alapuzha immediately.

¶28

Sd/-

¶29

K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE

¶30

R.AV

Laijumol v. Haroon

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laijumol v. Haroon

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sailendranatha Pillai K.S Vs Karunakara Prabhu

Satheesh Chandran Vs Velu

Katalappurath Lakshmi Vs Paipparambath Janardhanan

Ancy Babu Vs Celinamma Joseph

Riya K. Chacko Vs Boby Varkey

Vineetha Vs Vijesh.P.T