Dismissed

Asuma Beevi v. Sajina

Kerala HC28 Oct 2016Tr.P(C)/59/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a transfer petition filed by an aged petitioner challenging an appeal pending before the Family Court, Attingal, seeking transfer to Family Court, Kottarakkara, on grounds of convenience due to age and residence, after evaluating residential circumstances of all parties.

What did the court decide?

Transfer petition dismissed; interstate appearance dispensed with; petitioner to appear via counsel.

Asuma Beevi Vs Sajina — Partition | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/6TH KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

Tr.P(C).No. 59 of 2016

¶6

OP 35/2016 OF FAMILY COURT, ATTINGAL

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

ASUMA BEEVI, W/O.ABDUL REHUMAN, CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, VAYYANAM P.O, AYOOR (VIA), KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.SAJU.S.A

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. SAJINA, W/O.NIZAMUDEEN, A.S.S. MANZIL, PULLOORMUKKU, KALLAMBALAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT -695 605 (FROM SAJINA MANZIL MANDAKKUNNU, CHANAPPARA P.O,KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, KOLLAM).

¶12

2. ADHIL, S/O.SAJINA, (REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN MOTHER), RESIDING AT -DO- -DO- 69605.

¶13

3. SECRETARY, CHERUKULAM MUSLIM JAMATH COMMITTEE, CHERUKULAM P.O, AYOOR KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 306.

¶14

4. SECRETARY, THEKKIL MUSLIM JAMATH COMMITTEE, THEKKIL, CHANAPPARA P.O, KADAKKAL, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT -691 586.

¶15

R1-R2 BY ADV. SRI.SHAJIN S.HAMEED

¶16

THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

Tr.P(C).No. 59 of 2016

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES

¶21

ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF OP.35/2016 ON THE FILE OF FAMILY COURT ATTINGAL DATED 7/1/2016.

¶22

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES

¶23

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

¶24

¶25

K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

¶26

Tr.P.(C).No.59 of 2016

¶27

....................................................... Dated this the 28^th day of October, 2016.

¶28

O R D E R

¶29

This is a petition filed by the petitioner seeking transfer of OP.No.35/2016 pending before the Family Court, Attingal to the Family Court, Kottarakkara under section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶30

It is alleged in the petition that the petitioner is the second respondent in OP.No.35/2016 pending before the Family Court, Attingal. The petition was filed by respondents 1 and 2 herein for a declaration, injunction, recovery of gold ornaments and other valuables, maintenance and compensation and also for restitution of conjugal rights against her husband, who is the son of the petitioner impleading respondents 3 and 4 also in the petition. She is aged 75 years and her husband is no more. There is none to accompany her to go to Attingal to conduct the case. So she prays for transfer of that case to the Family Court, Kottarakkara within whose jurisdiction the petitioner is residing. Hence this petition.

¶31

Heard Sri. S.A. Saju, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Shajin S.Hameed, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and none appeared for respondents 3 and 4.

¶32

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted

¶33

Tr.P.(C).No.59 of 2016 2

¶34

that the first respondent along with the child was residing at Kottarakkara and if the case is transferred, it will be convenient for her also. Only for the purpose of filing the petition, she has shown the temporary address at Attingal.

¶35

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that now respondents 1 and 2 are residing along with the parents at Attingal and there is none in Kottarakkara for her to stay there. So he prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶36

It is an admitted fact that the son of the petitioner married the first respondent and second respondent herein was born to them in that wedlock. It is also not in dispute that their relationship strained and now they are residing separately. The first respondent along with the second respondent filed OP.No.35/2016 before the Family Court, Attingal seeking a declaration that the marriage solemnized between the first petitioner and the first respondent therein is still subsisting and she is the legally wedded wife of the first respondent and the talaq is invalid for restitution of conjugal rights, permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the first respondent from doing anything on the basis of the illegal talaq and for return of gold ornaments and money and also for past and future maintenance. It is seen from the petition itself that the address of the first

¶37

Tr.P.(C).No.59 of 2016 3

¶38

respondent was shown as Pullurmukku, Kallambalam Post, Thiruvananthapuram district. That is coming within the jurisdiction of Family Court, Attingal. The first respondent in the original petition before the court below was not made a party to this proceedings as well. The petitioner herein is only a party to the proceedings in the court below in respect of return of gold ornaments and other patrimony that has been paid in connection with the marriage and the main relief has been claimed only against the son of the petitioner who according to the first respondent is her husband. The petitioner has no case that the first respondent is having any income of her own. The petitioner can very well appear through counsel and her interest also can be taken note of by her son who is the main respondent in the case. Asking a lady without any employment depending on her parents and living with her parents near Attingal with the child to come to Kottarakkara to conduct the case at the whims and fancies of the petitioner will only cause unnecessary hardship to her. Even if the case is transferred, no hardship will be caused to the petitioner as her interest can be protected by her son, who is the main respondent in the case. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the child is now studying in the school at Kottarakkara. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that at the time when they were residing together, the child was

¶39

Tr.P.(C).No.59 of 2016

¶40

¶41

admitted in a school at Kottarakkara. Now the child is with the first respondent and continuing her education near Attingal. So, under such circumstances, this court feels that more hardship will be caused to the first respondent if the case is transferred comparing to the hardship that is going to be caused to the petitioner if the transfer is not allowed. So there is no merit in the petition and it is liable to be dismissed.

¶42

In the result, the petition is dismissed. Personal appearance of the petitioner can be dispensed with and she is permitted to appear through counsel. Only if she wants to adduce evidence or in connection with mediation or counselling her presence is required, then only her personal presence need be insisted by the Family Court, Attingal. Interim order of stay granted is vacated and IA.No.264/2016 is dismissed.

¶43

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

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.

¶46

¶47

Tr.P.(C).No.59 of 2016 5

Asuma Beevi v. Sajina

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Asuma Beevi v. Sajina

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.J.Maria Lilly Vs Yogakshemam Kuries and Loans Ltd.

Karl Heinz Damschen Vs Joseph Anandkumar

Johnson Vs Mohammed Shafeeq a

Rekha Vs Vijayakrishnan V.K.S

Christy Jose Vs O.T. Mathewkutty

Priyanka Rejeesh Vs Rejeesh Rajan