Allowed

Athira V.V. v. Vinesh Bhaskaran K.B.

Kerala HC27 Oct 2016Tr.P(C)/530/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a transfer petition filed by a wife to move her pending divorce case from the Family Court, Kasaragod to the Family Court, Kannur. The court held that convenience and hardship of the wife, who lacks employment, outweigh the respondent's apprehensions, directing the transmission of records.

What did the court decide?

Transfer of OP.No.304/2016 from Family Court, Kasaragod to Family Court, Kannur for disposal.

Athira V.V. Vs Vinesh Bhaskaran K.B. — 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 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/5TH KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

Tr.P(C).No. 530 of 2016

¶6

TO TRANSFER O.P.NO. 304/2015 OF THE FAMILY COURT, KASARAGOD TO THE FAMILY COURT, KANNUR

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENT :

¶8

ATHIRA V.V.,

¶9

AGED 22 YEARS, D/O. ANILKUMAR, P.A. HOUSE, NEERKADAVU, AZHIKODE SOUTH, KANNUR-670 009.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.K.RAJESH SUKUMARAN

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER :

¶12

VINESH BHASKARAN, S/O. BHASKARAN, BABITHALAYAM, BEACH ROAD, VADAKARA MUKKU, HOSDURG, KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD-671 315.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH

¶14

THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

Msd.

¶16

Tr.P(C).No. 530 of 2016

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES :

¶19

ANNEXURE 1: COPY OF THE O.P.NO. 304/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE FAMILY COURT, KASARAGOD.

¶20

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES :

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE

Msd.

K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

¶26

.................................................. Tr.P.(C).No.530 of 2016

¶27

....................................................... Dated this the 27^th day of October, 2016.

¶28

O R D E R

¶29

This is a petition filed by the wife seeking transfer of OP.No.304/2016 pending before the Family Court, Kasaragod to the Family Court, Kannur under section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶30

It is alleged in the petition that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 11.8.2013 at Kannur and they lived together as husband and wife for sometime and thereafter their relationship strained and she is now residing with her parents in Kannur. The respondent husband filed a petition for divorce as OP.No.304/2016 before the Family Court, Kasaragod. She is without any employment and she is finding it difficult to go to Kasaragod to conduct the case. So she filed the petition for transfer.

¶31

Heard Sri.Rajesh Sukumaran K, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Pushparajan K, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued in support of his case in the petition.

¶32

Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the petition on the ground that on one occasion when the respondent went to the house of the petitioner, her brothers attacked him and a complaint was filed regarding the same and if the case is posted

¶33

Tr.P.(C).No.530 of 2016 2

¶34

at camp sitting at Payyannur, it will be convenient for the respondent as he is residing at Hosdurg.

¶35

The marital relationship between the parties and they are residing separately are not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner is residing along with her parents at Kannur. The respondent filed OP.No.304/2016 before the Family Court, Kasaragod for dissolution of marriage. The petitioner is without any employment. She will have to depend on others to go to Kasaragod to conduct the case. It will cause unnecessary hardship to her. Though the respondent had a case that on one occasion when he went to the hose of the petitioner, he was attacked by the relatives of the wife and a complaint was filed, it is not known as to whether any crime has been registered in respect of the same or not. Further, if any incident happened within the family court premises, they can make a complaint to the presiding officer of the family court, so that necessary protection can be given to them as well. So the apprehension of the respondent that if the case is transferred to Kannur, he will be put to hardship and his is likely under threat is only imaginary and that cannot be a ground for denying transfer of the case as it is settled law that the convenience of the wife has to be considered while considering the question of transfer of matrimonial cases. The question as to whether the same can be taken up at Payyanur camp sitting or not

¶36

Tr.P.(C).No.530 of 2016

¶37

¶38

can be considered by the family court if such a request is made by the parties. So under such circumstances, this court feels that it is necessary in the interest of justice to transfer OP.No.304/2016 pending before the Family Court, Kasaragod to the Family Court, Kannur for disposal.

¶39

So the petition is allowed. OP.No.304/2016 pending before the Family Court, Kasaragod is withdrawn and transferred to the Family Court, Kannur for disposal. The Family Court, Kasaragod is directed to transmit the records to the Family Court, Kannur at the earliest.

¶40

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

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.

¶43

¶44

Tr.P.(C).No.530 of 2016 4

Athira V.V. v. Vinesh Bhaskaran K.B.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Athira V.V. v. Vinesh Bhaskaran K.B.

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

C.Chandra Babu Vs C.Ravindran

Mathew v. Daniel Vs P.M. Salim

Mariya Jasmine Vs Yousaf

Mumthas Vs Abdul Salim

Divya Vs Krishnakumar

A.T.Alikutty Vs C.Muneer