Allowed

Dr.Aiswarya N v. Dr.Akhilesh M

Kerala HC23 Nov 2016Tr.P(C)/579/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a transfer petition under Section 24 CPC. The petitioner sought transfer of the divorce petition from Family Court Kollam due to pendency of other cases elsewhere. Considering the distance and apprehension, the court transferred the case to Family Court Thrissur as a neutral and convenient location for both parties.

What did the court decide?

Transfer of OP(HMA).No.632/2016 from Family Court, Kollam to Family Court, Thrissur for disposal, parties directed to appear on 22.12.2016.

Dr.Aiswarya N Vs Dr.Akhilesh M — 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/2ND AGRAHAYANA, 1938

¶5

Tr.P(C).No. 579 of 2016 ------------------------OP(HMA) 632/2016 OF FAMILY COURT,KOLLAM ----------------

¶6

PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:

¶7

DR. AISWARYA.M, D/O V.K. VENUGOPAL, "REVATHY", NECHIKOTTIL HOUSE, AMBADI NAGAR, HOUSE NO.20, VALAMBOOR PO, ANGADIPURAM, NEAR NJERALATH KALASRAMAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679325.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON SMT.KAVERY S THAMPI SRI.P.ARUN KUMAR (MONCOMPU)

¶9

RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:

¶10

DR.AKHILESH M, S/O K.MADHUSOODANAN PILLAI, SREEPADMOM, NEAR SARATHI JUNCTION, TKM COLLEGE PO, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691005.

¶11

BY ADVS. SRI.PRATHEESH.P SMT.RENY ANTO

¶12

THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

K.V.

¶14

TPC NO 579 OF 2016:

¶15

APPENDIX

¶16

PETITIONERS ANNEXURES:

¶17

ANNEXURE A : COPY OF PETITION, OP(HMA) NO 632 OF 2016 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT AGAINST THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT,KOLLAM.

¶18

RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES:

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

K.V.

K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

¶23

....................................... Tr.P.(C).No.579 of 2016

¶24

Dated this the 23^rd day of November, 2016.

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

This is a petition filed by the petitioner seeking transfer of OP (HMA).No.632/2016 pending before the Family Court, Kollam to the Family Court, Malappuram under section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶27

It is alleged in the petition that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 27.10.2013 at Angadippuram in Malappuram District. They lived together as husband and wife for sometime. Thereafter their relationship strained and now they are residing separately. The respondent filed OP(HMA).No.632/2016 before the Family Court, Kollam for dissolution of marriage. The petitioner filed MC.No.8/2015 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Perinthalmanna against the respondent and others under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act and that is pending consideration. Further on the basis of a complaint given by her, a case was registered and it is pending as C.C.No.614/2015 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Perinthamanna and there is another case is also pending as C.C.No.365/2015. It is difficult for her to go to Kollam to conduct the case. The respondent is coming to Perinthamnna to conduct the other cases. So no difficulty will be caused to him if this case is also transferred.

¶28

Tr.P.(C).No.579 of 2016

¶29

¶30

The respondent filed counter affidavit denying the allegations and stating that relatives along with the father of the petitioner had threatened the respondent when the he appeared before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Perinthalmanna in C.C.No.614/2015 and this was informed to the court. The petitioner has to travel 300 km from Kollam and it is difficult for her to go there to conduct the case. If the case is transferred to Ernakulam or Thrissur, it will be convenient for the respondent also to reach there without loss of day of travel and he also apprehends that if he gos to Peinthalmanna, there is a possibility of further rift between the relatives and the petitioner. So he prays for disposing the case after accepting the contentions raised.

¶31

Heard Sri. Sathyanatha Menon, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Pratheesh P, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there are other cases pending before the Perinthalmanna court and he is attending those cases. If this case is also transferred, no hardship will be caused to him.

¶33

On the other hand, counsel for the respondent submitted that all these cases were caused when he came to Perinthalmanna to attend the cases. There is a possibility of the same being repeated. So he is prepared to come to Ernakulam or Thrissur

¶34

Tr.P.(C).No.579 of 2016 3

¶35

which will be convenient and no hardship will be caused to the petitioner as she is a doctor.

¶36

It is an admitted fact that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized in the year 2013 and now they are residing separately. The are two criminal cases pending before Perinthalmanna courts on the basis of the complaint given by the petitioner as C.C.No.614/2015 and 365/2015 and another case was pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II as MC.No.8/2015. The respondent filed OP(HMA).No.632/2016 before the Family Court,' Kollam for dissolution of marriage. The apprehension of the respondent was that since there are already two criminal cases pending, when he went to Perinthalmanna to attend the case he was threatened by the relatives of the petitioner and he is apprehensive of going to that place. It is seen from the allegations in the petition itself that one of the case was under section 294 (b) and 448 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The apprehension of the respondent that there is a possibility of repetition of such things between the parties if he goes to Malappuram cannot be ruled out. He had also mentioned that he will have to travel a long distance and the place is not connected with train and he will have to spend one day more to come to Malappuram to conduct the case. He expressed his willingness to transfer the case either to

¶37

Tr.P.(C).No.579 of 2016

¶38

¶39

Ernakulam or to Thrissur so that he can reach that place within a day and conduct the case. Considering the circumstances, this court feels that instead of transferring the case to Malappuram, the case can be transferred to the Family Court, Thrissur so that both can attend the court at Thrissur without any difficulty. The petitioner is a doctor and she can travel as well. So under such circumstances, this court feels that OP(HMA).No.632/2016 pending before the Family Court, Kollam can be transferred to the Family Court, Thrissur for disposal.

¶40

So the application is allowed with a modification of withdrawing the case OP(HMA).No.632/2016 pending before the Family Court, Kollam and transferred to the Family Court, Thrissur for disposal. 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, Thrissur on 22.12.2016. The Family Court, Kollam is directed to transmit the records to the Family Court, Thrissur immediately.

¶41

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

¶42

Sd/-

¶43

K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.

¶44

Dr.Aiswarya N v. Dr.Akhilesh M

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.Aiswarya N v. Dr.Akhilesh 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

K.M.Kishorekumar Vs K.M.Sudheerkumar

Vidyasagar Vs Sunilkumar

T.a.Zaheer Vs Zakira

Geethamohan.M Vs Dileep.P

Radhika Vs Dr.Baburaj

Priyanka.K.U. Vs Vineetha v.T.@ Vineeth Varadarajan