Allowed

Dr.Jayasree Gopinath v. Gopinath

Kerala HC16 Nov 2016Tr.P(C)/404/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Transfer petitions filed by a married couple for the transfer of two property declaration cases and one damages case between Family Courts in Irinjalakkuda and Thrissur. The court prioritized the wife's employment convenience in Thrissur over the husband's distance argument regarding Irinjalakkuda.

What did the court decide?

O.P.171/2015 and 972/2015 pending before Family Court, Irinjalakkuda were withdrawn and transferred to Family Court, Thrissur for disposal.

Dr.Jayasree Gopinath Vs Gopinath — 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/25TH KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

Tr.P(C).No. 404 of 2016

¶6

TO TRANSFER O.P.NO. 972/2015 OF THE FAMILY COURT, IRINJALAKUDA TO FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR

¶7

PETITIONER(S) :

¶8

DR.JAYASREE GOPINATH, D/O. PUTHUVATH SREEDHARAN NAIR, AGED 50 YEARS, PUTHUVATH HOUSE, P.O. MATTATHUR, KODAKARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.M.PREMCHAND

¶10

SRI.C.S.SUMESH

¶11

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶12

GOPINATH, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O. LATE MELANGATH PADMANABHAN, CHERIYIL HOUSE, KADUPPASSERY VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK - 680 683.(NOW RESIDING AT NEAR MARIYAMMAN KOVIL ROAD, C/O. VIJAYAKUMARI, THIRUVANKULAM, TRIPUNITHURA MUNICIPALITY, THIRUVANKULAM P.O., ERNAKULAM - 682 305.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.A.T.ANILKUMAR

¶14

THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16-11-2016, ALONG WITH Tr.P(C).No. 119 OF 2016 AND Tr.P(C).No. 407 OF 2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

Msd.

¶16

Tr.P(C).No. 404 of 2016

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES :

¶19

ANNEXURE A1: TRUE COPY OF THE O.P.NO. 972/2015 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT AND PENDING BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, IRINJALAKUDA.

¶20

ANNEXURE A2: TRUE COPY OF THE O.P.NO. 171/2015 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, IRINJALAKUDA.

¶21

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES :

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE

Msd.

K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

¶27

Tr.P.(C)Nos.404 of 2016, 407 of 2016 and 119 of 2016

¶28

Dated this the 16^h day of November, 2016

¶29

COMMON ORDER

¶30

Tr.P.(C).No.407/2016 was filed by the wife seeking transfer of O.P.171/2015 and Tr.P.(C).No.404/2016 was filed by the same petitioner to transfer O.P.972/2015 both pending before the Family Court, Irinjalakkuda to Family Court, Thrissur, while Tr.P.(C). No.119/2016 was filed by the husband to transfer O.P.309/2016 pending before Family Court, Thrissur to Family Court, Irinjalakkuda, all under section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶31

The common case of the parties in these petitions was that, the petitioner in Tr.P.(C).No.407/2016 and Tr.P.(C).No.404/2016 and Tr.P.(C).No.119/2016 are wife and husband and their marriage was solemnised on 25.03.1990 and a child was born to them in that wedlock and the child is now residing with her mother. Due to some difference of opinion between the spouses, they are residing separately. The wife filed O.P.171/2015 before the Family Court, Irinjalakkuda for declaration in respect of a property which was obtained as per the document in the name of the husband against the husband and his parents and the property is situated within the jurisdiction of Family Court, Irinjalakkuda. The husband filed O.P.972/2015 before the same Family Court, for a declaration that the

¶32

Tr.P.(C)Nos.404 of 2016, 407 of 2016 and 119 of 2016

¶33

¶34

property obtained in the name of the wife really belongs to him. The wife filed O.P.309/2016 before the Family Court, Thrissur for damages against the husband and a lady said to be having illicit relationship with her husband. It is alleged in the petition filed by the husband that, since two cases are pending before the Family Court, Irinjalakkuda, the case pending before the Family Court, Thrissur can be withdrawn and transferred to Family Court, Irinjalakkuda so that all the cases can be tried from there.

¶35

On the other hand, the wife filed the petition for transfer on the ground that she is working in 'Oushadi', Thrissur and it will be convenient for her to go to Thrissur than going to Irinjalakkuda and so she wanted transfer the other two cases to be transferred to Family Court Thrissur. Hence these petitions were filed by the respective parties.

¶36

Heard Sri.Premchand, counsel appearing for the petitioner in Tr.P.(C) 407/2016 and Tr.P.(C).No.404/2016 and first respondent in Tr.P.(C).No.119/2016 and Sri.K.T.Anilkumar, counsel appearing for the husband in all the cases and others remained absent.

¶37

The counsel for the wife submitted in support of his case in the petition while the application was opposed by the counsel for the

¶38

Tr.P.(C)Nos.404 of 2016, 407 of 2016 and 119 of 2016

¶39

¶40

husband on the ground that the only ground mentioned was distance, but a comparison of the distance will go to show that Irinjalakkuda is near when compared to the distance from Thrissur to her place of residence. So he prays for allowing the application filed by the husband and dismissing the application filed by the wife.

¶41

The fact that the petitioners in these cases are husband and wife and there was a female child born to them in that wedlock and she is living with the mother now. Now they are residing separately. It is true that two cases namely O.P.171/2015 and 972/2015 one was filed by the wife and the other by the husband in respect of properties purchased in favour of each other seeking a declaration that they are the owners of those respective properties and those properties are situated within the jurisdiction of Family Court, Irinjalakkuda and that was how it was happened to be filed before that court. The O.P.309/2016 was filed by the wife against the husband and a person with whom the husband is said to be having some illicit relationship for damages. It is mentioned in the petition filed by the husband that, since two other cases are pending before the Family Court, Irinjalakkuda, the case filed by the wife before Family Court, Thrissur will have to be transferred to Family Court, Irinjalakkuda.

¶42

Tr.P.(C)Nos.404 of 2016, 407 of 2016 and 119 of 2016

¶43

¶44

Whereas the wife filed the petition for transfer of cases pending before the Family Court, Irinjalakkude on the ground that she is working in 'Oushadi' as a Doctor in Thrissur and it will be convenient for her to go to Thrissur than going to Irinjalakkuda to conduct the case. It is true, distance wise Irinjalakkuda will be nearer to the wife, but she is working in Thrissur and she is daily traveling from Thrissur in connection with her employment, so if the cases are transferred to Family Court, Thrissur, it will be convenient for her. It is settled law that, while considering the question of transfer, the convenience of the wife has to be considered. Since she is now coming to Thrissur in connection with her employment, she is comfortable to go to Thrissur as she was acquainted with the traveling to Thrissur.

¶45

So under such circumstance, this court feels that, it is necessary in the interest of justice to transfer O.P.171/2015 and 972/2015 both pending before Family Court, Irinjalakkuda to Family Court, Thrissur as in the other case the respondent had appeared and even these two cases are transferred no hardship will be caused to him. So under such circumstances, the petition filed by the husband has to be dismissed and the wife will have to be allowed. So Tr.P.(C).No.119/2016 is dismissed and Tr.P.(C).No.404/2016 and Tr.P.(C).No.407/2016 are

¶46

Tr.P.(C)Nos.404 of 2016, 407 of 2016 and 119 of 2016

¶47

¶48

allowed and O.P.171/2015 and 972/2015 both pending before the Family Court, Irinjalakkuda are withdrawn and transferred to Family Court, Thrissur for disposal. Family Court Irinjalakkuda is directed to transmit the records in respect of the above two cases to Family Court, Thrissur immediately.

¶49

Registry is directed to communicate this order to the concerned courts immediately.

¶50

Sd/- (K. Ramakrishnan, Judge)

¶51

//True Copy//

¶52

P.A. to Judge

¶53

Dr.Jayasree Gopinath v. Gopinath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.Jayasree Gopinath v. Gopinath

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

Sebastian Alexis Vs Pylee Alexis

Saji Vs Shaji

Sasidharan Vs Ratheesh Chandran V.R.

Divya Vs Anoop Prasad

G.Ponnappan Pillai Vs Padmavathy Amma

Subash Vs Sakunthala