Allowed

Thomas M.T. v. Beena P.V.

Kerala HC3 Nov 2016Tr.P(C)/548/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed the transfer petition filed by a husband seeking to transfer a dissolution of marriage petition from the Family Court, Thalassery to the Family Court, Ernakulam, considering the convenience of both parties regarding their work locations.

What did the court decide?

The petition is allowed. O.P. No. 460/2016 pending before the Family Court, Thalassery is withdrawn and transferred to the Family Court, Ernakulam for disposal. Records are directed to be transmitted

Thomas M.T. Vs Beena P.V. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | 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. 548 of 2016

¶6

TO TRANSFER O.P.NO. 460/2016 OF THE FAMILY COURT, THALASSERI TO THE FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENT IN OP :

¶8

THOMAS M.T. @ WILSON,

¶9

S/O. JOSE A.T., AGED 39 YEARS, ELAPUNGAL HOUSE, MANIMOOLIL P.O, VAZHIKKADAVU, NILAMBUR

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN

¶11

SMT.A.R.PRAVITHA

¶12

RESPONDENT(S)/ PETITIONER IN OP :

¶13

BEENA P.V. @ ALIYAMMA, D/O VARKEY, PUTHEPURAKKAL, MELMURINGODI (PO), KANNUR DISTRICT, NOW WORKING AT KITEX GARMENTS, KIZHAKKAMBALAM P.O., ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 682 562.

¶14

BY ADV. SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN

¶15

THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Msd.

¶17

Tr.P(C).No. 548 of 2016

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶20

EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE O.P.NO. 460/2016 DATED 22.08.2016 FILED BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, THALASSERI.

¶21

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE.

Msd.

K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

¶27

....................................... Tr.P.(C).No.548 of 2016

¶28

........................................ Dated this the 3^rd day of November, 2016.

¶29

O R D E R

¶30

This a petition filed by husband seeking transfer of OP.No.460/2016 pending before the Family Court, Thalassery to the Family Court, Ernakulam under section 24 of the Code of Civil procedure.

¶31

It is alleged in the petition that the petitioner married the respondent and due to some difference of opinion, they are residng separately. The respondent filed OP.No.460/2016 before the Family Court, Thalssery for dissolution of marriage. The respondent is working in KITEX Garments, Aluva, Ernakulam since 2003 onwards. Since she is a native of Kannur district, the case was filed before the Family Court, Thalassery. The petitioner is a coolie and doing some work in Ernakulam district, it will be difficult for him to go to Thalassery to conduct the case. So he prays for transfer of OP.No.460/2016 pending before the Family Court, Thalassery to the Family Court, Ernakulam.

¶32

When the petition came up for hearing today, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that since the respondent is working in Ernakulam, she has no objection in transferring the case. So considering the submission made and also considering the fact that she is working in Ernakulam, Aluva since 2003 onwards if the case is transferred to Ernakulam, no hardship will be

¶33

Tr.P.(C).No.548 of 2016

¶34

¶35

caused to her and it will be convenient for her also to conduct the case, this court feels that it is necessary in the interest of justice to transfer the case to the Family Court, Ernakulam for disposal.

¶36

So the petition is allowed. O.P.No.460/2016 pending before the Family Court, Thalassery is withdrawn and transferred to the Family Court, Ernakulam for disposal. The Family Court, Thalassery is directed to transmit the records to the Family Court, Ernakulam at the earliest. Both the counsel submitted that if a date is fixed for appearance of the parties, they will appear before the transferee court on that date. So, parties are directed to appear before the Family Court, Ernakulam on 6.12.2016.

¶37

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

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.

¶40

Thomas M.T. v. Beena P.V.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thomas M.T. v. Beena P.V.

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

Kalaivani Vs Arun Subramoniam