Allowed

Sajith Chandrababu, v. Drishya Dileep

Kerala HC15 Sept 2020Tr.P(Crl.)/10/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This transfer petition sought transfer of a maintenance suit from Family Court, Kottarakkara to Family Court, Attingal, where other matrimonial litigations were pending. The formation of an affirmative directory order transferring the maintenance suit to ensure convenience for trial.

What did the court decide?

Maintainance Court No.94/2019 transferred to Family Court, Attingal with record transmission within two weeks and authorization for Adalat reference.

Sajith Chandrababu, Vs Drishya Dileep — Matrimonial and Divorce | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 24TH BHADRA, 1942

¶5

Tr.P(Crl.).No.10 OF 2020

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN MC 94/2019 OF FAMILY COURT, KOTTARAKKARA

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

SAJITH CHANDRABABU, AGE 28 YEARS, S/O.K.CHANDRABABU CHATHAYAM, NEDUMPURATHU, ATTINGAL.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695101 (REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, K.CHANDRABABU, AGED 58 YEARS, FATHER OF SAJITH CHANDRABABU, RESIDING AT CHATHAYAM, NEDUMPURATHU, ATTINGAL P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695101

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.M.DINESH

¶10

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 DRISHYA DILEEP, AGED 26 YEARS D/O.DILEEP, VILAYIL VEEDU, SIVANMUKKU, MADATHARA, CHITHARA VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, KOLLAM-695541

¶12

2 SANVI, AGED 1, D/O.SAJITH CHANDRABABU, VILAYIL VEEDU, SIVANMUKKU, MADATHARA, CHITHARA VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, KOLLAM-695541, REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN 1ST RESPONDENT DRISHYA DILEEP

¶13

Tr.P(Crl.).No.10 OF 2020

¶14

¶15

3 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682031

¶16

BY ADV. R1 BY ADV. SRI.N.DHARMADAN (SR.) R1 BY ADV. SMT.D.P.RENU R1 BY ADV. SMT.V.R.LAKSHMI SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶17

THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.09.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

Tr.P(Crl.).No.10 OF 2020

¶19

¶20

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶21

Tr.P (Crl.) No.10 of 2020

¶22

Dated this the 15^th day of September, 2020

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The prayers in the above Transfer Petition (Criminal) filed under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is as follows:

¶25

“(i) To transfer M.C.No.94/2019 pending before the Family Court, Kottarakkara to Famliy Court, Attingal in the interest of justice;

¶26

(ii) That the petitioner be granted such other reliefs that are appropriate and incidental to this Transfer Petition.”

¶27

Heard Sri.Dinesh M., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner (husband), Smt. D.P.Renu learned Advocate appearing for R1 and R2 (wife and minor daughter) and Sri. Saigi Jacob Palatty learned Public Prosecutor appearing for R3, State of Kerala. It is pointed out by the petitioner that Annexure A1 Original Petition O.P.No.1338/2018 dated 22.09.2018 has been filed before the Family Court, Attingal by the respondent herein (wife). Whereas, Annexure A2 Original Petition (Hindu Marriage Act) O.P.(H.M.A) No.1386 of 2018 for restitution of conjugal rights has been filed before the Family Court, Attingal by the petitioner herein (husband). The respondent herein (wife) has filed Annexure A4 M.C.No.94 of 2019 before the Family Court, Kottarakkara

¶28

Tr.P(Crl.).No.10 OF 2020

¶29

¶30

under Secti on 125 (1) of th e Cr.P.C. seeking claim for maintenance. The case of the petitioner is that as already said, as of now three matrimonial litigating proceedings are now pending out of which Annexure A1 relate to one incident by the wife and another by the husband are now pending before the Family Court, Attingal. Whereas, Annexure A4 M.C.No.94 of 2019 has been filed by the respondent herein (wife) before the Family Court, Kottarakkara and that Annexure A4 M.C. may also be transferred to the Family Court, Attingal so that which will be convenient to both sides.

¶31

Smt.D.P. Renu, learned counsel appearing for R1 and R2 would submit based on the instructions of the parties that since Annexure A1 and A2 proceedings are already now pending before the Family Court, Attingal, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have no objections incase this Court orders that Annexure A4 M.C. No.94 of 2019 is also transferred to the Family Court, Attingal. Further, Smt. D.P. Renu, learned counsel appearing for R1 and R2 would also submit that it is reliably learned that the matters in relation to A1 and A2 have been referred by the Family Court, Attingal to the Adalath which is to commence by the 30^th of November, 2020 and that this Court may direct that Annexure A4 M.C. after transfer may also be referred by the Family Court, Attingal to the Adalath process along with Annexure A1 and A2

¶32

Tr.P(Crl.).No.10 OF 2020

¶33

¶34

proceedings. Further it is pointed out that in case these are to go for trial then it will be ordered that all the three cases may be jointly tried by the Family Court, Attingal. Sri.M.Dinesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner (husband) would also welcome the submissions made by the counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

¶35

Accordingly, the following directions are also passed.

¶36

(i). Annexure A4 M.C.No.94/2019 on the file of the Family Court, Kottarakkara will stand transferred to the Family Court, Attingal. Accordingly, it is further ordered that the Family Court, Kottarakkara will ensure that the entire records that is placed in relation to Annexure A4 M.C.No.94/2019 is to transmitted and forwarded to the Family Court, Attingal within two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment.

¶37

(ii). After receipt of the case details in relation to the above said transferred M.C.No.94/2019, the Family Court, Attingal will re-number the said M.C. and after ascertaining from both sides may refer the said case to the Adalath which will commence in November, 2020 along with the Annexure A1 and A2 matters. Further in these matters are not settled and require trial, then parties will be at liberty to file appropriate application for joint trial of the cases in which case the family court will consider the same and after hearing both sides may

¶38

Tr.P(Crl.).No.10 OF 2020

¶39

¶40

pass necessary orders thereon without further delay.

¶41

Learned Advocates on both sides also would submit that this

¶42

Court may also stipulate necessary time limits for the conclusion of the Adalath process. Accordingly, it is ordered that it shall be ensured that the Adalath process may duly completed and finalized without much delay preferably within a period of two months date of consideration of all the three cases together by the Adalath authority concerned.

¶43

The Registry will forward certified copies of the judgment to both the Family Court, Attingal which is dealing with M.C.No.94/2019 as well as the Family Court, Kottarakkara which dealing with O.P.No.1338/2018 and O.P.(H.M.A) No.1386 of 2018 for necessary information and further action.

¶44

With these observations and directions the above Transfer Petition (Criminal) will stand disposed of.

¶45

Sd/ALEXANDER THOMAS JUDGE

¶46

SCS

¶47

Tr.P(Crl.).No.10 OF 2020

¶48

¶49

APPENDIX

¶50

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶51

ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE OP NO.1338/2018 DATED 22.09.2018 ON THE FILE OF THE FAMILY COURT, ATTINGAL ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE OP(H.M.A) NO.1386/2018 DATED 28.09.2018 ON THE FILE OF THE FAMILY COURT, ATTINGAL ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE SUMMARY DATED 29.10.2016 BELONG TO THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER OF THE PETITIONER ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE MC NO.94/2019 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE FAMILY COURT, KOTTARAKKARA DATED 3.4.2019

¶52

//TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE

Sajith Chandrababu, v. Drishya Dileep

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sajith Chandrababu, v. Drishya Dileep

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

Sanjai Lal, Vs State of Kerala

Thomsun Realtors Private Limited., Vs the District Geologist

Joy Joseph, Vs State of Kerala

Raveendran Nair Vs the State of Kerala

Gopika P.B., Vs the State of Kerala

Siby Thomas, Vs State of Kerala