Allowed

Aswathy Chandran.M v. Rajkumar.S.Nair

Kerala HC7 Dec 2016Tr.P(C)/585/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Permitted transfer of a suit for recovery filed by the husband in the Family Court at Nedumangadu to the Family Court at Thiruvananthapuram under Section 24 CPC, prioritizing the wife's convenience in a matrimonial dispute where she resides with a disabled minor child.

What did the court decide?

Transfer of OP.No.958/2016 from Family Court, Nedumangadu to Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram and direction to transmit records.

Aswathy Chandran.M Vs Rajkumar.S.Nair — 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 7TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/16TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938

¶5

Tr.P(C).No. 585 of 2016

¶6

TO TRANSFER O.P.NO. 958/2016 OF THE FAMILY COURT AT NEDUMANGADU TO THE FAMILY COURT AT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶7

NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENTS :

¶8

ASWATHY CHANDRAN.M, AGED 26 YEARS, D/O.B.BALACHANDRAN, PARIMALAM, CRAM NO.37, PANICKERS LANE, MANNAMOOLA, PEROORKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BALACHANDRAN

¶10

AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.BALAKRISHNA PILLAI, PARIMALAM, CRAM NO.37, PANICKERS LANE, MANNAMOOLA, PEROORKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶11

MAYA DEVI,

¶12

AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.BALAKRISHNA PILLAI, PARIMALAM, CRAM NO.37, PANICKERS LANE, MANNAMOOLA, PEROORKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶13

BY ADVS. SMT.K.KUSUMAM

¶14

SRI.K.KALESH

¶15

NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER :

¶16

RAJKUMAR.S.NAIR,

¶17

AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.T.SREEKUMARAN NAIR, SMIRTHI, CRAM NO.47, CHAITHANYA GARDENS, MANNAMOOLA, PEROORKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-691 532.

¶18

BY ADVS. SRI.P.A.AHAMMED SRI.THOUFEEK AHAMED

¶19

THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-12-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

Msd.

¶21

Tr.P(C).No. 585 of 2016

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES :

¶24

ANNEXURE 1: THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONERS, FROM THE FAMILY COURT, NEDUMANGADU.

¶25

ANNEXURE 2: THE TRUE COPY OF THE I.A.NO. 1816/2016 IN O.P.NO. 958/2016 WHICH IS RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONERS FROM THE FAMILY COURT, NEDUMANGADU.

¶26

ANNEXURE 3: THE TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE OF THE MINOR CHILD OF THE PETITIONER, SHOWING THAT THE CHILD SUFFERS FROM ATTACKS OF SEIZURE FROM ITS BIRTH ONWARDS.

¶27

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES :

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE

Msd.

K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

¶33

....................................... Tr.P.(C).No.585 of 2016

¶34

........................................ Dated this the 7^th day of December, 2016.

¶35

O R D E R

¶36

This is a petition filed by the petitioner seeking transfer of OP.No.958/2016 pending before the Family Court, Nedumangad to the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram under section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶37

It is alleged in the petition that the first petitioner is the wife of the respondent and petitioners 2 and 3 are her parents. The marriage between the first petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 4.7.2010 at Thiruvananthapuram. A child was born to them in that wedlock. Thereafter their relationship strained and they are now residing separately. The first petitioner filed OP.No.1541/2016 for divorce and OP.No.1542/2016 before the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram for recovery of money and gold ornaments. The child is aged 3 ½ years. She is suffering from recurring attack of seizure. The respondent filed OP.No.958/2016 before the Family Court, Nedumangad for recovery of money etc against the petitioners. The petitioners are finding it difficult to go to Nedumangad to conduct the case. Since there are two other cases pending before the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram, if this case is transferred to that court, no hardship will be caused to the respondent. Hence this petition.

¶38

In spite of notice served, the respondent remain absent.

¶39

Tr.P.(C).No.585 of 2016 2

¶40

Heard Sri. Kalesh, counsel representing Smt. Kusumam.

¶41

The fact that the 1^st petitioner and the respondent are wife and husband and their marriage was solemnized on 4.7.2010 is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that now they are residing separately and the 1^st petitioner is now residing along with her parents with the child. The respondent filed OP.No.958/2016 before the Family Court, Nedumangad for recovery of money etc against the petitioners. The petitioners are finding it difficult to go to Nedumangad to conduct the case. There are two other cases pending before the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram filed by the petitioner against the respondent and he is contesting those cases and if this case is also transferred to that court, no hardship will be caused to him. Asking a lady living with the child in her parental home to go to Nedumangad to conduct the case will cause unnecessary hardship to her.

¶42

It is settled law that while considering the question of transfer of cases involved in matrimonial disputes, the place of convenience of the wife will have to be considered. So it is necessary in the interest of justice to transfer OP.No.958/2016 pending before the Family Court, Nedumangad to the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram for disposal.

¶43

So the petition is allowed. OP.No.958/2016 pending before the Family Court, Nedumangad is withdrawn and transferred to

¶44

Tr.P.(C).No.585 of 2016 3

¶45

the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram for disposal. The Family Court, Nedumangad is directed to transmit the records to the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram immediately. If a joint trial application is filed by any of the parties, that can be considered by the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram and pass appropriate orders.

¶46

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

¶47

Sd/-

¶48

K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.

¶49

Aswathy Chandran.M v. Rajkumar.S.Nair

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aswathy Chandran.M v. Rajkumar.S.Nair

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

T.F.George Vs Bharathkshemam Company

K.C.Chandy Vs K.M.Mani

C.S.Swaminathan Vs C.S.Sathyan

Dibeesh K. Vs Dijina M.

Thara Vs v.Vivek

Aswathy Vs Vishnu