Dismissed

Sheeja v. Shanavas Ali

Kerala HC25 Nov 2016Tr.P(C)/490/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a transfer petition seeking shifts of a family court case from Kattappana to Chavara due to the petitioner's residence change. The court dismissed the petition because a prior similar application regarding a maintenance case was already dismissed, and transferring only this specific case would result in conflicting findings on shared aspects.

What did the court decide?

The application for transfer of O.P. 111/2016 is dismissed as the petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought given the prior dismissal of the transfer petition for the maintenance case.

Sheeja Vs Shanavas Ali — 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

FRIDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/4TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938

¶5

Tr.P(C).No. 490 of 2016

¶6

TO TRANSFER OP 111/2016 OF FAMILY COURT, KATTAPPANA TO FAMILY COURT, CHAVARA

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER:

¶8

SHEEJA,

¶9

W/O. SHANAVAS ALI, AGE 30 YEARS, CHIRAKUNNEL HOUSE, NEDUMKANDOM KARA, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT, NOW RESIDING AT KANIYANTAYYATH VADAKKATHIL, MUKUNTHAPURAM P.O., KOLLAM-691 585.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.NOBEL RAJU

¶11

SRI.K.P.JABBAR SMT.T.AMBILI

¶12

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT:

¶13

SHANAVAS ALI, S/O. ALI RAWTHER, AGED 37 YEARS, CHIRAKUNNEL HOUSE, NEDUMKANDOM KARA, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶14

BY ADVS. SRI.SALIM V.S. SRI.H.NUJUMUDEEN SRI.P.E.SAJAL SMT.SIMI M JACOB

¶15

THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

msv/

¶17

TR. P(C).No. 490 of 2016

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:

¶20

ANNEX A1 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION IN OP 111/2016 FILED BY THE PETITIONER, PENDING BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, KATTAPPANA.

¶21

ANNEX A2 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY HEAD MISTRESS, GOVT. M.L.P.S., MUKUNDAPURAM, CHAVARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT DTD.6.6.2016.

¶22

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURE

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE

msv/

K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

¶28

Tr.P. (Civil) No.490 of 2016

¶29

Dated this the 25^th day of November, 2016

¶30

ORDER

¶31

This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking transfer of O.P.111/2016 of Family Court, Kattappana to Family Court, Chavara under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶32

It is alleged in the petition that the petitioner is the wife of the respondent whose marriage was solemnised on 04.09.2006 at Pathinaramkandam in Idukki District and two children were born to them in that wedlock. After sometime, their relationship strained and she had to leave the matrimonial home and stayed along with her father at Ernakulam who was an employee in Cochin Port Trust and after his retirement, he had shifted his residence to Chavara. So she had to shift her residence to Chavara. The petitioner herself filed O.P.111/2016 before the Family Court, Kattappana for realisation of patrimony and gold ornaments etc. She had also filed M.C.9/2016 which is pending before the Family Court, Kattappana. She filed an application to transfer of that case also.Now she is finding it difficult to go to Kattappana to conduct the case. Hence this petition.

¶33

Heard Sri.Nobel Raju and Sri.Salim V.S., counsel appearing for the petitioner and respondent respectively.

¶34

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that, she is now

¶35

Tr.P. (Civil) No.490 of 2016

¶36

¶37

residing at Chavara. It is very difficult for her to go to Kattappana to conduct the case and she prays for allowing the petition. The application was opposed by the counsel for the respondent on the ground that the petition filed by the petitioner for transfer of M.C.9/2016 was dismissed by this court as per order in Tr.P.(Crl.) 89/2016.

¶38

It is an admitted fact that the petitioner and respondent are wife and husband and two children were born to them in that wedlock. According to the petitioner now she is residing along with her father at Chavara. The petition was filed before the Family Court, Kattappana when she was residing along with her father at Ernakulam who was an employee in Cochin Port Trust. Now she wants to transfer the case. It is mentioned in the petition itself that she filed a transfer petition to transfer M.C.9/2016 filed by her for maintenance for herself and for the children before Family Court, Kattappana to Family Court, Chavara. But both the counsel conceded that, the transfer petition filed by the petitioner for transfer of maintenance case as Tr.P.(Crl.) 89/2016 was dismissed by this court. Under such circumstances, when one case has already been dismissed by this court, then she is not entitled to get transfer as it is not proper for this court to transfer this case alone to Family Court, Chavara as claimed in the petition as it will cause different findings on the same aspect. So under such

¶39

Tr.P. (Civil) No.490 of 2016

¶40

¶41

circumstances, this court feels that since the application for transfer of maintenance case has already been dismissed by this court, the petitioner is not entitled to get the relief claimed in that petition as she can conduct both the cases from one court. So the petitioner is not entitled to get the relief claimed and petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶42

In the result, the petition is dismissed.

¶43

Registry is directed to communicate this order to the court below at the earliest.

¶44

Sd/- (K. Ramakrishnan, Judge)

¶45

//True Copy//

¶46

P.A. to Judge

¶47

Sheeja v. Shanavas Ali

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sheeja v. Shanavas Ali

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

S.Jancy Vs S.Ratheesh

The Assistant Executive Engineer Vs Y.Shamsudheen

Sathyadasan Vs Saraswathy

Thomas John Bosco Vs Pushpam Francis

Karthika S.P. Vs Ajith M.S.

Gaurishree V.K Vs Karthik Mohan