Partly allowed

Kalaivani v. Arun Subramoniam

Kerala HC3 Nov 2016Tr.P(C)/505/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court heard mutual transfer petitions in a matrimonial dispute. Custody and convenience considerations led the Court to transfer the husband's divorce petition to Thiruvananthapuram to be tried jointly with his wife's case there, while dismissing the husband's separate petition.

What did the court decide?

Transfer of Husband's divorce petition (O.P. 1153/2016) from Ernakulam to Thiruvananthapuram. Wife's transfer petition (T.P.C. 558/2016) dismissed. Joint trial ordered at Thiruvananthapuram.

Kalaivani Vs Arun Subramoniam — 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 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/12TH KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

Tr.P(C).No. 505 of 2016 ()

¶6

--------------------------(TO TRANSFER OP.NO. 1153/2016 OF FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM TO FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM)

¶7

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

¶8

PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER:

¶9

KALAIVANI, D/O. NATARAJAN, AGED 32 YEARS, KALAIVANI BHAVAN, KALLUVETTANKUZHI, VEGANOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 523.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.A.CHANDRA BABU SMT.S.S.LOVE LI N SITHARA

¶11

RESPONDENT/PETITIONER :

¶12

ARUN SUBRAMONIAM, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O. S.SOMAN, 73,3007-B, VISHUKRIPA KAEZHATH LANE, PACHALAM P.O., COCHIN, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 012. NOW RESIDING AT 359/9/3, 37TH CROSS, 9TH MAIN, 5TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGLORE PIN-560 041.

¶13

BY DR.K.P.SATHEESAN,SENIOR ADVOCATE ADVS. SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) SRI.K.SUDHINKUMAR

¶14

THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03-11-2016, ALONG WITH TR.P(C).NO. 558/2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

sts

¶16

Tr.P(C).No. 505 of 2016

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:

¶19

ANNEX A1	COPY OF THE OP.NO.1153/2016 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM.
ANNEX A2	COPY OF THE OP.NO.1534/2016 FOR RESTITUTION OF CONJUGAL RIGHTS ON THE FILES OF FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶20

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

sts

K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

¶25

============================

¶26

Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 505 of 2016 and Transfer Petition (Civil)No.558 of 2016

¶27

==================================

¶28

Dated this the 3^rd day of November, 2016

¶29

ORDER

¶30

Transfer Petition (Civil) 505 of 2016 was filed by the wife to transfer O.P.No.1153 of 2016 pending before Family Court, Ernakulam to Family Court Thiruvananthapuram while Transfer Petition (Civil) No.558 of 2016 filed by the husband to transfer O.P.No.1534 of 2016 pending before Family Court Thiruvananthapuram to Family Court Ernakulam both under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶31

The common case of both the petitioners in their respective petition was that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 15.09.2011 at Aswathy Auditorium Vizhinjam in Thiruvananthapuram District and thereafter, they lived together as husband and wife for sometime and a female child was born to them in that wedlock, who is aged two years now, she is now residing with the mother, wife herein. At the time of marriage, the petitioner was doing her Ph.D in biochemistry in Sree Chithirathirunal Institute of Medical Science

¶32

Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 505 of 2016 and 2 Transfer Petition (Civil)No.558 of 2016

¶33

and Technology in Thiruvananthapuram. There was some misunderstanding arose between the parties and now they are residing separately. Husband filed O.P.1153 of 2016 before Family Court, Ernakulam for divorce. Wife filed O.P.1534 of 2016 before Family Court Thiruvananthapuram for restitution of conjugal rights. According to the wife, she is now residing with her parents with minor child at Thiruvananthapuram and it will be difficult for her to go to Ernakulam to conduct the case. According to the husband he is working in Bangalore and it will be difficult for him to go to Thiruvananthapuram to conduct the case and Ernakulam will be convenient for both the parties. So both of them filed respective petition for transfer of respective cases filed by them to the courts of their choice mentioned in the petition. Hence these petitions.

¶34

Heard Shri Nemam Chandra Babu, learned counsel appearing for the wife and Dr. K.P. Satheesan, learned senior counsel appearing for the husband.

¶35

The learned counsel for the wife submitted that the wife is residing along with the minor child at Thiruvananthapuram and it will be difficult for her to come to Ernakulam and she is

¶36

Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 505 of 2016 and 3 Transfer Petition (Civil)No.558 of 2016

¶37

finding it difficult to conduct the case at Ernakulam.

¶38

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the

¶39

husband submitted that he is working in Bangalore and if the case is transferred to Thiruvananthapuram he will have to travel three days and travel will take more time than reaching Ernakulam that will cause unnecessary hardship to him.

¶40

It is an admitted fact that the marriage between the parties was solemnized at Vizhinjam in Thiruvananthapuram District. It is also in a way admitted that a female child was born to them in that wedlock and the wife along with the child is now residing along with her parents in Vizhinjam at Thiruvananthapuram. The husband filed O.P.1153 of 2016 before Family Court Ernakulam for dissolution of marriage, whereas wife filed O.P.1534 of 2016 before Family Court Thiruvananthapuram for restitution of conjugal rights. Admittedly the respondent is a resident of Ernakulam, but he is working and residing at Bangalore in connection with his employment. As far as the wife is concerned she will have to travel from Thiruvananthapuram to Ernakulam with the child. That will cause more hardship to the

¶41

Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 505 of 2016 and 4 Transfer Petition (Civil)No.558 of 2016

¶42

wife. Anyhow the husband will have to travel from Banglore to conduct the case either to Ernakulam or Thiruvananthapuram. So travelling will not be difficult for the husband as even for conducting the case at Ernakulam he will have to travel from Bangalore to Ernakulam. The travelling facilities to Ernakulam and Thiruvananthapuram are same except time consumption for travel.

¶43

It is settled law that in case while considering the question of transfer of matrimonial cases, the place of convenience of wife will have to be considered. Here wife is residing at Thiruvananthapuram with the child, asking her to come to Ernakulam will be cause more difficult than the difficulty that has been suffered by the husband to go to Thiruvananthapuram. Transfer O.P.(Transfer)1534 of 2016 filed by the wife pending before Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram as requested for in T.P. (C)558 of 2016 need not be granted and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶44

On the other hand, this Court feels that it is necessary in the interest of justice to transfer O.P.1154 of 2016 pending before Family Court, Ernakulam to Family Court

¶45

Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 505 of 2016 and 5 Transfer Petition (Civil)No.558 of 2016

¶46

Thiruvananthapuram for disposal along with O.P.1534 of 2016 pending before that court.

¶47

So Transfer Petition (Civil) 558 of 2016 is dismissed and T.P.(C) 505 of 2016 is allowed and O.P.1154 of 2016 pending before Family Court Ernakulam is withdrawn and transferred to Family Court Thiruvananthapuram to be tried along with O.P.1534 of 2016 pending before that court.

¶48

If the parties file an application for joint trial, that can be considered by that court. Both the counsel submitted that if a date is fixed for appearance, they will appear before Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. So parties are directed to appear before Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram on 06.12.2016. The Family Court Thiruvananthapuram is directed to consider the question of speedy disposal of these cases considering the fact that the respondent has come from Bangalore to conduct the case. The respondent is permitted to appear through counsel on all hearing days except on dates where his presence is required for the purpose of counselling and referring the matter for mediation under Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure and trial. The

¶49

Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 505 of 2016 and 6 Transfer Petition (Civil)No.558 of 2016

¶50

Family Court, Ernakulam is directed to transmit the records

¶51

O.P.1153 of 2016 pending fore that court to Family Court

¶52

Thiruvananthapuram immediately. The Registry is directed to communicate this order to both the courts immediately.

¶53

Sd/-

¶54

K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE

¶55

SKV

Kalaivani v. Arun Subramoniam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kalaivani v. Arun Subramoniam

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

Fr. Manoj Varghese Vs Abraham Abraham

Padmakumari Vs Baburaj

Aboobacker M Vs P.K.Unnikrishnan

Santhosh Kumar Vs Suresh Kumar

Suresh Kumar Vs District Collector Alappuzha

Thomas M.T. Vs Beena P.V.