Partly allowed

Anjana Sivanandan v. Vinu Krishnan

Kerala HC5 Jan 2021Tr.P(C)/472/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

, the High Court allowed a transfer petition to move O.P. No. 343 of 2020 from the Family Court at Ottappalam to the Family Court at Kalpetta due to the petitioner's residence and financial constraints. The court held the transfer necessary to avoid continued difficulties for the aggrieved party.

What did the court decide?

Tr.P.C. allowed; O.P. No. 343 of 2020 transferred from Family Court, Ottappalam to Family Court, Kalpetta. Records to be sent up.

Anjana Sivanandan Vs Vinu Krishnan — Matrimonial and Divorce | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.V.ANILKUMAR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 15TH POUSHA, 1942

¶5

Tr.P(C).No.472 OF 2020

¶6

IN THE PROCEEDINGS IN OP 343/2020 OF FAMILY COURT, OTTAPPALAM

¶7

PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:

¶8

ANJANA SIVANANDAN, AGED 23 YEARS, D/O. SIVANANDAN, MULLASSERY HOUSE, VIDYA NAGAR ROAD, VYTHIRI VILLAGE, WAYANAD DISTRICT - 673122.

¶9

BY ADV. SMT.CELINE JOSEPH

¶10

RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:

¶11

VINU KRISHNAN, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O. BALAKRISHNAN, KUDUNGAL NAMBRATH, KUDALLUR, ANAKKARA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 679554.

¶12

R1 BY ADV. SRI.NAVEEN RADHAKRISHNAN

¶13

THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

Tr.P(C).No.472 OF 2020 2

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

Petitioner is the wife. She is the

¶17

respondent in O.P.No.343 of 2020 pending before the Family Court, Ottappalam. It is said that the O.P was filed by the husband/respondent herein seeking to declare the marriage as null and void.

¶18

Her contention is that she is residing at Vythiri in Kasargod about 130 kilometers

¶19

away from the Family Court, Ottappalam and since she is not in a position to travel from

¶20

such a long distance, she requests that the

¶21

O.P.343 of 2020 be transferred to Family Court, Kalpetta to her convenience.

¶22

She is unemployed. According to her, she is not in a position to meet the expenses

¶23

Tr.P(C).No.472 OF 2020 3

¶24

for travel.

¶25

Heard the learned counsel for the

¶26

petitioner as well as the respondent.

¶27

According to the learned counsel for

¶28

the respondent, if the O.P is transferred to Family Court, Kozhikode, inconvenience which he

¶29

will otherwise undergo could be comparatively mitigated.

¶30

After hearing both sides, I am of

¶31

opinion that the request made by the respondent cannot be entertained in view of the fact that

¶32

the petitioner would only continue to be faced

¶33

with the difficulties. Considering all the

¶34

matters together, I am of opinion that O.P.No.343 of 2020 now pending before the Family Court, Ottappalam is liable to be

¶35

transferred to Family Court, Kalpetta.

¶36

Tr.P(C).No.472 OF 2020 4

¶37

In the result, Tr.P.C is allowed. The Family Court, Ottappalam shall take steps for sending up records to Family Court, Kalpetta. On receipt of the records, the transferee Family Court will issue notices to parties to appear before that Court within a reasonable period of time.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

T.V.ANILKUMAR, JUDGE

¶40

¶41

Tr.P(C).No.472 OF 2020 5

¶42

APPENDIX

¶43

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶44

ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE OP 343/2020 PENDING BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, OTTAPALAM.

Anjana Sivanandan v. Vinu Krishnan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anjana Sivanandan v. Vinu Krishnan

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

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs Sathyan

Panayhanthatta Kunjiraman Nambiar Vs Kozhummal Chattadi Valsala

The Director, Kerala State Insurance Dept. Vs Radha

Tini Joseph Vs Sajeev P.V

Muhammed Siraj Vs Kadeeja.M.K

Ymca Vs T.a.Anthu