Transfer petition seeking transfer of O.P. No. 154 of 2013, a maintenance case from Family Court, Ottappalam to Family Court, Palakkad, was allowed. The court cited convenience and precedent favoring the wife's location.
O.P. No. 154 of 2013 of the Family Court, Ottappalam stands transferred to the Family Court, Palakkad.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL
FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JULY 2016/17TH ASHADHA, 1938
Tr.P(C).No. 91 of 2015 ()
TO TRANSFER OP.NO. 154/2013 OF FAMILY COURT, OTTAPPALAM TO FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD
PETITIONER(S) :
1. SAIFUNNISA
W/O.ABDUL MUIZZE, AGED 25 YEARS THAIVALAPPIL VEEDU, SALAFI MANZIL, VAZHAMPURAM, KARAKKURISSI P.O., MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
2. SALSABEEL
D/O.1ST PETIITIONER, AGED 5 YEARS (MINOR) THAIVALAPPIL VEEDU, SALAFI MANZIL, VAZHAMPURAM, KARAKKURISSI P.O., MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT
(2ND PETITIONER - MINOR IS REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN MOTHER 1ST PETITIONER).
BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY
RESPONDENT :
ABDUL MUIZEE S/O.A.K.HASSAN BAVA, AGED 31 YEARS NAVANEETHAM VEEDU, 48/894, KURUKKAPPALLY JUNCTION, DESABHIMANI ROAD, ELAMAKKARA P.O., COCHIN-682 017.
THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-07-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Mn
...2/-
Tr.P(C).No. 91 of 2015 ()
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES :
ANNEXURE A : TRUE COPY OF OP NO. 154/2013 PENDING ON THE FILES OF THE FAMILY COURT, OTTAPALAM.
RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES : NIL
//TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Mn
K. HARILAL, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Tr.P.(C) No. 91 of 2015
- - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 8th day of July, 2016
O R D E R
The 1st petitioner is the wife of the
respondent herein and the 2nd petitioner is the minor child born to them. The petitioners filed O.P. No.154 of 2013 for past and future maintenance from the respondent, before the Family Court, Ottappalam.
After the formation of the new court at Ottappalam, on account of the petitioners being the residents of Mannarkkad Taluk, which is within the limits of the newly formed Family Court at Ottappalam, the case was transferred to that court and now pending as O.P. No.154 of 2013. The petitioners further submit that now the petitioners are residing at Ponnamcode
in Mannarkkad Taluk. The residence of the
Tr.P.(C) No. 91 of 2015
-: 2 :-
petitioners is on the border of Mannarkkad Taluk
within the limits of Palakkad District and the Family Court at Palakkad is situating at about 20 Kms. away from their residence. On account of highway, the petitioners have to board a single bus to reach the Family Court at Palakkad from their residence, whereas they have to travel more than 50 Kms. to reach Ottappalam. The respondent is a resident of Cochin. Therefore, it is more convenient for him to go to the Family Court, Palakkad than to
reach the Family Court, Ottappalam. Hence, they prayed for an order, transferring O.P. No.154 of 2013 of the Family Court, Ottappalam to the Family Court, Palakkad.
petitioner.
matter of transferring the Family Court cases, the
Tr.P.(C) No. 91 of 2015
-: 3 :-
convenience of the wife must be given preference. Further in Amita Shah v. Virenderlal Shah ([2003] 10 SCC 609) the Apex Court again held that wife's lack of companionship for travelling to Family Court is a sufficient reason to transfer the case at the convenience of the wife.
This Transfer Petition (Civil) is allowed accordingly.
Sd/-
K. HARILAL,
JUDGE
DST
//True copy//
P.A. To Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether O.P. No. 154 of 2013 pending before Family Court, Ottappalam should be transferred to Family Court, Palakkad considering the convenience of the parties and the wife.
Whether the residence of the petitioner and the minor child makes the Family Court, Palakkad more convenient than Family Court, Ottappalam.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mangala Patil Kale v. Sanjeev Kumar KaleReferred¶41
[2003] 10 SCC 280 · Who else cites this
Amita Shah v. Virenderlal ShahReferred¶45
[2003] 10 SCC 609 · Who else cites this
SAIFUNNISA
SALSABEEL
ABDUL MUIZEE
K. HARILAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
K. HARILAL
Parties & counsel
