Allowed

P.M.Gayathri v. C.Sreejith

Kerala HC24 Nov 2016Tr.P(C)/514/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a transfer petition moving a restitution of conjugal rights case from Family Court, Kannur to Family Court, Palakkad. The court noted the petitioner had to travel to Kannur under hardship while the respondent resided abroad, applying the principle of place of convenience.

What did the court decide?

OP.No.731/2013 pending before the Family Court, Kannur to be withdrawn and transferred to the Family Court, Palakkad for disposal.

P.M.Gayathri Vs C.Sreejith — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/3RD AGRAHAYANA, 1938

¶5

Tr.P(C).No. 514 of 2016

¶6

OP 731/2016 OF FAMILY COURT, KANNUR ---------------

¶7

PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:

¶8

P.M.GAYATHRI, D/O.MURALI MARAR, AGED 28 YEARS, GAYATHRI HOUSE, KONGAD POST, PALAKKAD.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY

¶10

RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:

¶11

C.SREEJITH, S/O.SANKARA NARAYANAN, AGED 37 YEARS, SHIVASHAKTHI, KALARIVATHUKKAL,P.O. VALAPATTANAM, KANNUR 670001.

¶12

THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

K.V.

¶14

TPC NO 514 OF 2016:

¶15

APPENDIX

¶16

PETITIONERS ANNEXURES:

¶17

ANNEXURE A COPY OF PETITION FILED UNDER 125 CR.P.C.AS M.C NO.93/2016 FILED BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT,PALAKKAD BY PETITIONER

¶18

AGAINST RESPONDENT.

¶19

ANNEXURE B. COPY OF THE PETITION NUMBERED AS O.P NO.731/2016 FILED BY RESPONDENT AGAINST THE PETITIONER BEFORE FAMILY COURT,KANNUR.

¶20

RESPONDENTS ANNEXURERS: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

K.V.

K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J

¶25

Tr.P(C)No.514 OF 2016

¶26

Dated this the 24^th day of November 2016

¶27

ORDER

¶28

This is an application filed by the petitioner seeking transfer of OP.731/2016 of Family Court, Kannur to Family Court, Palakkad under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶29

It is alleged in the petition that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnised on 6.5.2009 and a male child was born to them in that wedlock on 5.1.2011. Thereafter some difference opinion arose between them, now they are residing separately. Petitioner filed MC.93/2016 before the Family Court, Palakkad for maintenance for herself and the child and as a counter blast to the same, the respondent filed OP.731/2016 before Family Court, Kannur for restitution of conjugal rights. Petitioner is now residing along with her parents at Palakkad. It is difficult for her to go to Kannur to conduct the case. The respondent is now residing along with his patents in Kuwait in connection with his employment. So she prays for transfer of the case.

¶30

Though notice was served on the respondent directly and also through counsel appearing for the respondent in the court below, he did not appear. He remained absent.

¶31

Heard Sri. Rajesh Sivaramankutty, learned counsel

¶32

¶33

¶34

appearing for the petitioner, who argued in support of his case in the petition.

¶35

The fact that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 6.5.2009, a male child was born to them in that wedlock, now they residing separately and the petitioner is residing along with the child in her parental house at Palakkad etc is not in dispute. It is seen from the petition that the petitioner filed M.C.No.93/2016 for maintenance for herself and the child before the Family Court, Palakkad and that is pending there. The respondent filed OP.No.731/2016 before the Family Court, Kannur for restitution of conjugal rights. The petitioner is without any employment and she is depending on her parents for her livelihood and also for the maintenance of the child. Asking such a lady to go to Kannur to conduct the case will cause unnecessary hardship to the petitioner. It is settled law that place of convenience of the wife will have to be considered while considering the question of transfer cases. So under such circumstances this court feels that it is necessary in the interest of justice to transfer OP.No.731/2013 pending before the Family Court, Kannur to the Family Court, Palakkad for disposal.

¶36

So the petition is allowed. OP.No.731/2013 pending before the Family Court, Kannur is withdrawn and transferred to the Family Court, Palakkad for disposal. The Family Court, Kannur is

¶37

¶38

¶39

directed to transmit the records to the Family Court, Palakkad at

¶40

the earliest.

¶41

Registry is directed to communicate a copy of this order to both the courts immediately.

¶42

Sd/-

¶43

K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.

¶44

Rav/cl

P.M.Gayathri v. C.Sreejith

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.M.Gayathri v. C.Sreejith

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

Shyni B. Maichel Vs Benny

Sasibala .G. Vs Geetha Devi

M/S Muthoot Vehicle and Asset Finance Ltd. Vs Geo Wilson

Santhakumari Vs Vivek K. Rahul

Greeta Mathew Vs Jaijo Palliparamban

S.Jancy Vs S.Ratheesh