Partly allowed

Sreeranj B.S., v. Samyuktha S.N.

Kerala HC3 Aug 2021Tr.P(C)/62/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed the husband's transfer petition and allowed the wife's transfer petition, transferring the Family Court Original Petition from Thrissur to Thiruvananthapuram based on the wife's residence and employment, following the principle that convenience of the wife is preferred.

What did the court decide?

TR.P.C.No.62/2021 dismissed; TR.P.C.No.212/2019 allowed; O.P.No.284/2019 transferred from Family Court, Thrissur to Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram.

Sreeranj B.S., Vs Samyuktha S.N. — Kerala HC (2021) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 3^RD DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 12TH SRAVANA, 1943

¶5

TR.P(C) NO. 62 OF 2021

¶6

TO TRANSFER OP(HMA) 226/2018 OF FAMILY COURT,TRIVANDRUM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TO FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR

¶7

PETITIONER (RESPONDENT):

¶8

SREERANJ B.S., AGED 40 YEARS S/O. B.K. SREEDHARAN, BLANGATTUKARAN HOUSE, ENGANDIYUR VILLAGE, KUNDALIYUR P.O., THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY POA HOLDER, B.K. SREEDHARAN, AGED 74 YEARS, BLANGATTUKARAN HOUSE, ENGANDIYUR VILLAGE, KUNDALIYUR P.O., THRISSUR.

¶9

BY ADV T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF

¶10

RESPONDENT (PETITIONER):

¶11

SAMYUKTHA S.N., D/O. B.NALINI, PULIYARATHALA VEEDU, ELANJIMOODU LANE, MURINJAPALAM, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, 695 011.

¶12

BY ADVS. BASANT BALAJI A.RENJITH V.K.SANDHYA

¶13

THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.08.2021, ALONG WITH Tr.P(C).212/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

¶15

TR.P(C) NO. 62 OF 2021 & TR.P(C) NO. 212 OF 2019

¶16

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶17

PRESENT

¶18

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶19

TUESDAY, THE 3^RD DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 12TH SRAVANA, 1943 TR.P(C) NO. 212 OF 2019

¶20

TO TRANSFER OP 284/2019 OF FAMILY COURT,THRISSUR TO FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶21

PETITIONER (RESPONDENT):

¶22

SAMYUKTHA S.N., AGED 40 YEARS PULIYARATHALA VEEDU, ELANJIMOODU LANE, MURINJAPALAM, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 011.

¶23

BY ADV BASANT BALAJI

¶24

RESPONDENT (PETITIONER):

¶25

SREERAJN B.S., S/O.B.K.SREEDHARAN, BLANGATTUKARAN HOUSE, ENGANDIYUR VILLAGE, KUNDALIYUR P.O., THRISSUR - 680 616.

¶26

BY ADV T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF

¶27

THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.08.2021, ALONG WITH Tr.P(C).62/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶28

¶29

TR.P(C) NO. 62 OF 2021 & TR.P(C) NO. 212 OF 2019

¶30

ORDER

¶31

Dated this the 03^rd day of August 2021

¶32

The spouses are at loggerheads and have resorted to legal remedies. The wife, who is the petitioner in Tr.P.(C)No.212/2019 has filed O.P.(HMA) No.226/2018 and M.C.No.50/2018 before the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The husband, who is the petitioner in Tr.P.(C)No.62/2021, has filed O.P. No.284/2019 before the Family Court, Thrissur. Among the cases, M.C.No.50/2018 was allowed by the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram, against which R.P.(FC) is pending before this Court. In O.P.(HMA)No.226/2018, the husband was set ex parte and his application for setting aside the ex parte order is pending.

¶33

The wife seeks transfer of O.P. No.284/2019 from the Family Court, Thrissur to the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram mainly on the ground that she is a permanent resident of Thiruvananthapuram and is employed at Thiruvananthapuram and has to look after her aged mother. The husband seeks transfer of O.P.

¶34

(HMA)No.226/2018 from the Family Court,

¶35

TR.P(C) NO. 62 OF 2021 & TR.P(C) NO. 212 OF 2019 4

¶36

Thiruvananthapuram to the Family Court, Thrissur on the premise that he is employed abroad and the case is being contested through his Power-of-Attorney holder, who is aged more than 70 years.

¶37

Learned Counsel for the husband contended that the marriage between the parties was at Thrissur and hence, the jurisdiction is vested with the Family Court, Thrissur. Further, the wife is a permanent resident of Bangalore as is evident from the address in O.P.(HMA) No.226/2018 filed by her. Learned Counsel for the wife clarified that the wife’s sister is employed at Bangalore and occasionally the wife accompanies her aged mother to Bangalore. It is only because of that reason, the Bangalore address was shown along with the permanent address at Thiruvananthapuram. Learned Counsel asserts that the wife is residing and is employed at Thiruvananthapuram and that notice in the R.P. (F.C.) filed by the husband was served in her Thiruvananthapuram address.

¶38

Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, I find the balance of convenience to be in the wife's favour. In arriving at such conclusion, I am

¶39

TR.P(C) NO. 62 OF 2021 & TR.P(C) NO. 212 OF 2019 5

¶40

guided by the decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court, in Sumita Singh v Kumar Sanjay and another [(2001) 10 SCC 41], Rajani Kishore Pardesh v Kishore Babulal Pardesh [ (2005) 1 SCC 237], wherein it is held that, in transfer petitions arising from matrimonial cases, convenience of the wife should be preferred over that of the husband.

¶41

In the result, Tr.P.C.No.62/2021 is dismissed and Tr.P.C.No.212/2019 is allowed. O.P.No.284/2019 on the files of Family Court, Thrissur shall forthwith be transferred to the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The transferee court shall not insist on the personal presence of the parties, unless absolutely necessary. The jurisdictional issue is left open to be decided by the Family Court.

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN

JUDGE

NB/3.8.21

TR.P(C) NO. 62 OF 2021 & TR.P(C) NO. 212 OF 2019

¶48

APPENDIX OF TR.P(C) 62/2021

¶49

PETITIONER’S ANNEXURE

¶50

ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE O.P.NO.284/2019 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR. ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE OP(HMA) NO.226/2018 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 30.1.2018. ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE M.C.NO.50/2018 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 31.1.2018.

¶51

RESPONDENT’S ANNEXURE: NIL

¶52

¶53

TR.P(C) NO. 62 OF 2021 & TR.P(C) NO. 212 OF 2019

¶54

APPENDIX OF TR.P(C) 212/2019

¶55

PETITIONER’S ANNEXURE

¶56

ANNEXURE 1	TRUE COPY OF THE	O.P.(HMA)	NO.226 OF	2018 ON
	THE FILE O THIRUVANANTHAPURAM	F THE .	FAMILY	COURT,
ANNEXURE A2	TRUE COPY OF THE THE FAMILY COURT,	MC.NO.50/2 THIRUVANAN	018 ON THE THAPURAM.	FILE OF
ANNEXURE 3	TRUE COPY OF THE	O.P.NO.284/	2019 ON THE	FILE OF
	THE FAMILY COURT,	THRISSUR.

¶57

RESPONDENT’S ANNEXURE: NIL

¶58

True Copy

¶59

P.A to Judge

Sreeranj B.S., v. Samyuktha S.N.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sreeranj B.S., v. Samyuktha S.N.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Seyyidath Heleemathusaadiya Vs Muhammed Ashraf V.M.

Babu., Vs Anurekha

George Varghese Vs Rukkiya Beevi

C.v.Mathew Vs Immanuel Marthoma Church

Samyuktha S.N., Vs Sreerajn B.S.

Manikka Vs Raju