Allowed

Azeela Azeez v. Habeeb V.M.

Kerala HC13 Oct 2016Tr.P(C)/544/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a transfer petition under Section 24 CPC seeking to move a Family Court case from Thrissur to Ernakulam. The court allowed the transfer considering the wife's hardship and convenience, noting her lack of employment and residence with a minor child in Ernakulam.

What did the court decide?

The petition is allowed. OP.No.927/15 is transferred from Family Court, Thrissur to Family Court, Ernakulam.

Azeela Azeez Vs Habeeb V.M. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/21ST ASWINA, 1938

¶5

Tr.P(C).No. 544 of 2015

¶6

OP 927/2015 OF FAMILY COURT,THRISSUR

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

AZEELA AZEEZ, AGED 22 YEARS, D/O A.ABDUL AZEEZ, CHERUKARIKKAL HOSUE, KOTHERI ROAD, VADUTHALA P.O., CHITTOOR VILLAGE DESOM, KOCHI-682023, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.C.ANILKUMAR (KALLESSERIL) SRI.C.Y.VINOD KUMAR

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. HABEEB V.M., AGED 29 YEARS, S/O LATE V.M.MUHAMMED, VALIYAKATH MOOTHATTIL HOSUE, PAVARATTY P.O., VENMENAD DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN:680 507.

¶12

2. AZEEZ, AGED 51 YEARS, CHERUKARIKKAL HOUSE, KOTHERI ROAD, VADUTHALA P.O., CHITTOOR VILLAGE AND DESOM, KOCHI-682 023, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶13

R2 BY ADV. SRI.JELSON J.EDAMPADAM

¶14

THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

Tr.P(C).No. 544 of 2015

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES

¶19

ANNEXURE I COPY OF OP.927/2015 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE FAMILY COURT THRISSUR. ANNEXURE II COPY OF THE SUMMONS DATED 17/9/2015 SERVED ON THE PETITIONER IN ANNEXURE AI PETITION.

¶20

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES

¶21

NIL. / TRUE COPY / P.S. TO JUDGE

¶22

¶23

K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

¶24

Tr. P.(C) No.544 of 2015

¶25

Dated this the 13^th day of October, 2016

¶26

ORDER

¶27

This petition is filed by the petitioner seeking transfer of O.P.927/2015 pending before the Family Court, Thrissur to Family Court, Ernakulam under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶28

It is alleged in the petition that the first respondent herein married the petitioner on 18.03.2012 at Ernakulam and the petitioner was a student at the time of marriage and a boy child was born to them in that wedlock on 14.10.2015. The first respondent was working abroad at that time. Due to some difference of opinion, they started living separately and she is now residing at Ernakulam along with her parents and the minor child. She is without any employment.

¶29

The first respondent filed Annexure A1 petition as OP.No.927/15 before the Family Court, Thrissur against the petitioner and the second respondent, who is her father for return of some gold ornaments or its value. It is difficult for her to go to Thrissur to conduct the case as she is residing at Ernakulam along with her parents and the child. The first respondent is having employment of his own. So it is necessary to transfer the case to the Family Court, Ernakulam. Hence the petition.

¶30

Tr. P.(C) No.544 of 2015 2

¶31

Notice sent to R1 was returned with the endorsement unclaimed. So service was declared compete as per order in IA.No.1285/2016. The second respondent entered appearance through counsel.

¶32

Heard Sri. C.Anil Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Jelson, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent, who argued in support of his petition.

¶33

It is an admitted fact that the first respondent married the petitioner on 18.3.2012 and the marriage was solemnized at Ernakulam. The marriage was also registered from Corporation of Kochi. It is also not in dispute that a child was born to them in that wedlock on 14.10.2013. The first respondent filed OP.No.927/2015 before the Family Court, Thrissur against the petitioner and her father, who is the second respondent herein seeking return of certain gold ornaments said to have been given to the petitioner in connection with the marriage. The petitioner is without any any employment. She is living with her parents along with the child. So asking a lady without any employment living with the minor child at Ernakulam to go to Thrisusr to conduct the case will cause unnecessary hardship to her. It is settled law that convenience of the wife will have to be considered while transferring the cases of matrimonial dispute. So considering the circumstances, this court feels that it is necessary in the interest of justice to transfer

¶34

¶35

Tr. P.(C) No.544 of 2015

¶36

OP.No.927/15 pending before the Family Court, Thrissur to the Family Court, Ernakulam for disposal.

¶37

So the petition is allowed. OP.No.927/15 pending before the Family Court, Thrissur is transferred to the Family Court, Ernakulam for disposal. The Family Court, Thrissur is directed to transmit the records to the Family Court, Ernakulam at the earliest.

¶38

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

¶39

Sd/

¶40

K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.

¶41

ss/cl

¶42

Tr. P.(C) No.544 of 2015 4

Azeela Azeez v. Habeeb V.M.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Azeela Azeez v. Habeeb V.M.

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

Thomas Eugine Vs Lourd Mary

Santhoshkumar Vs Muhammadali

Muvattupuzha Urban Co-Operative Bank Limited No 556 Vs Smt. Santha Cherian

P.V. Sobhana Vs K.C. Mineesh

A.a.Basheer @ Abdul Basheer Vs Sainudheen Kunju @ Sainudheen

Karthika Vs Jibikumar