Partly allowed

Sangeetha Thomas v. Joseph Mangalath Augusty

Kerala HC18 Oct 2019Tr.P(C)/16/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Transfer Petition (C) No. 16 of 2019, filed by Sangeetha Thomas seeking transfer of O.P. 849/2018 from Family Court, Thalassery to Family Court, Calicut, was allowed in part. The Court found no inconvenience to the parties, noting the petitioner's employment near Calicut and the respondent's lack of objection.

What did the court decide?

Transfer of O.P. 849/2018 from Family Court, Thalassery to Family Court, Calicut for trial and disposal.

Sangeetha Thomas Vs Joseph Mangalath Augusty — Matrimonial and Divorce | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 26TH ASWINA, 1941

¶5

Tr.P(C).No.16 OF 2019

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP 849/2018 OF FAMILY COURT, THALASSERY

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

SANGEETHA THOMAS AGED 29 YEARS D/O. THOMAS, RESIDING AT PAZHAYAMKOTTIL HOUSE, ELLUMANNAM P.O., MANANTHAVADY, WAYANAD - 670645.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.NIRMAL V NAIR

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

JOSEPH MANGALATH AUGUSTY AGED 31 YEARS S/O AUGUSTY, RESIDING AT MANGALATH, VEDEKUMCHAL KELAKAM, CHETTIYAMPARAMBU P.O., KANNUR- 670674.

¶12

R1 BY ADV. SRI.T.V.JAYAKUMAR NAMBOODIRI

¶13

THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

-2-

¶15

Tr.P(C).No.16 OF 2019

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

The prayer in this transfer petition is to transfer O.P.849/2018 on the files of the Family Court, Thalassery to the Family Court, Kalpetta, for the trial and disposal, in accordance with law.

¶18

Heard.

¶19

The petitioner is the wife, who is employed in MIMS Hospital, Calicut. The respondent is residing in

¶20

Kannur. The respondent has no objection in transferring the above said case from the Family Court, Thalassery to the Family Court, Calicut. There is no child in the wedlock. The petitioner comes to Calicut to attend the job everyday. Therefore, the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent, that if the case is transferred to the Family Court, Calicut, that will not cause any inconvenience to the petitioner,

¶21

-3-

¶22

Tr.P(C).No.16 OF 2019

¶23

cannot be sidelined. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has to be accompanied by her parents also to attend the Family Court. However, no such contention was taken by the petitioner in the transfer petition. Even otherwise, it cannot be believed that a person who comes for the job in a hospital near to the Family Court, Calicut, requires the help of her parents to attend the Family Court, Calicut, particularly when there is no allegation of any threat from the side of the respondent.

¶24

Having regard to the facts and circumstances

¶25

of the case, I am of the view that if the case is transferred to the Family Court, Calicut, that will not be inconvenient to both the parties. In view of the above, I am inclined to allow this transfer petition in part.

¶26

-4-

¶27

Tr.P(C).No.16 OF 2019

¶28

In the result, this transfer petition stands allowed in part, transferring O.P.849/2018 on the files of the Family Court, Thalassery to the Family Court, Calicut, for trial and disposal, in accordance with law. The case records shall be transmitted to the transferee court forthwith. The petitioner shall appear before the transferee court on 20.11.2019 without further notice.

¶29

Sd/-

¶30

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

JUDGE

Nkr/18.10.19

-5-

Tr.P(C).No.16 OF 2019

¶35

APPENDIX

¶36

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶37

ANNEXURE A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION IN O.P.NO.849/2018 ON THE FILES OF THE FAMILY COURT, THALASSERY.

¶38

ANNEXURE A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE SUMMONS ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER FROM THE FAMILY COURT, THALASSERY.

¶39

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL

Sangeetha Thomas v. Joseph Mangalath Augusty

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sangeetha Thomas v. Joseph Mangalath Augusty

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jayamma Balan, Vs C.S.I Christ Church

Mohith M., Vs Krishna Satheesan

Thomas Pothen Vs Sree Gokulam Chit and Finance Company (P) LTD.NO.356

Sameera T.P., Vs Muhammed Iqbal M.T.P.

Aruna Babu Vs Nibin Sasi Ninan

Reshma Raj Vs Sarinkumar.R