Allowed

Shalini v. Lakshmanan

Kerala HC21 Oct 2022OP (FC)/569/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court, under Article 227, allowed a petition challenging a Family Court order that dismissed an application to transfer a matrimonial trial venue. The Court set aside the order, directing the trial to be held in Kasaragod instead of Hosdurg to protect the petitioner's reputation, subject to safeguards for respondents.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dismissing I.A.No.1/2022 was set aside; the Family Court, Kasaragod, is directed to hold the trial of O.P.No.219 of 2021 at Kasaragod with day-to-day proceedings.

Shalini Vs Lakshmanan — Matrimonial and Divorce | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR

¶6

FRIDAY, THE 21^ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 29TH ASWINA, 1944

¶7

O.P.(FC) NO. 569 OF 2022

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 22.07.2022 IN I.A.NO.1 OF 2022 IN O.P.NO.219 OF 2021 OF THE FAMILY COURT, KASARAGOD

¶9

PETITIONER/S:

¶10

SHALINI

¶11

AGED 40 YEARS, DAUGHTER OF KUNHIRAMAN, SOUPARNIKA NILAYAM HOUSE, SREEVALSAM JUNCTION, PADUKAI P.O, KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD-670314.

¶12

BY ADVS.

¶13

I.V.PRAMOD SAIRA SOURAJ P.

¶14

RESPONDENTS:

¶15

1 LAKSHMANAN

¶16

AGED 55 YEARS, SON OF BATTYAN, RESIDING KOOVATTI, CHOYAMKODE, CHAYOTH P.O, KARINTHALAM VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD, PIN– 671314.

¶17

2 RAVEENDRAN,

¶18

AGED 60 YEARS, SON OF KUNHAMBU PODUVAL, RESIDING AT RAREERAM, PADNAKKAD RAILWAY GATE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN– 671314.

¶19

BY ADVS.

¶20

A.ARUNKUMAR SIDHARTH NAMBIAR SACHIN GEORGE ARAMBAN

¶21

THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL

¶22

HEARING ON 21.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY

¶23

DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

¶25

O.P.(FC) No.569 of 2022

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

Ajithkumar, J.

¶28

The 1^st respondent in O.P.No.219 of 2021 on the files of the Family Court, Kasaragod is the petitioner. The said original petition was filed by the 1^st respondent-husband for a decree of divorce on the ground of adultery. The Family Court posted it to be heard at its Camp Sitting at Hosdurg. The petitioner filed I.A.No.1 of 2022 requesting to hear the matter at Kasaragod. The Family Court as per Ext.P5 order dated 22.07.2022 dismissed that application. That order is under challenge in this Original Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶29

Notice was directed to be served on the respondent as per the order dated 10.10.2022. The 1^st respondent entered appearance through Counsel.

¶30

Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the

¶31

petitioner and also the learned Counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent.

¶32

O.P.No.219 of 2021 was filed by the 1^st respondent alleging that the petitioner has been leading an adulterous life

¶33

¶34

O.P.(FC) No.569 of 2022

¶35

with the 2^nd respondent. In the wedlock between the petitioner and the 1^st respondent there are two children, who are now grown up. The petitioner would contend that the 2^nd respondent is totally a stranger to her and raising totally incorrect allegations, O.P.No.219 of 2021 was filed. If such a

¶36

case is tried by the Family Court at its Camp Sitting at Hosdurg, which is her native place, that would bring about shame and disgrace to her and her children. People in and around Hosdurg are familiar to her. In such circumstances, she wanted to hold trial of the case at Kasaragod. The Family Court took the view that an in-camera trial at its Camp Sitting at Hosdurg will protect the interest of the petitioner and accordingly dismissed I.A.No.1 of 2022.

¶37

Holding trial of the case at Kasaragod would be inconvenient to both for the petitioner and the respondents since they are natives of places near to Hosdurg. But the petitioner-wife wants to hold the trial of the case at Kasaragod. The reason stated are that if the trial is held at Hosdurg, considering the nature of the allegations levelled

¶38

¶39

O.P.(FC) No.569 of 2022

¶40

against her, she would be put to shame and disgrace among the people with whom she has acquaintance. Another reason highlighted is that her children are grown up and since her chastity is at stake, not only she but also her children would be put to difficulties and harassment by holding the trial at Hosdurg. We accept the said contention. The request of the petitioner can therefore be allowed, of course, by safeguarding the interest of the respondents.

¶41

Accordingly, Ext.P5 order is set aside. Family Court, Kasaragod is directed to hold the trial of O.P.No.219 of 2021 at Kasaragod. As far as possible, the Family Court shall conduct the trial day-to-day and shall endeavour, subject to the convenience of the Court, to conclude examination of a particular witness the same day. This Original Petition is disposed of on such terms.

¶42

Sd/-

¶43

ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE

¶46

dkr

¶47

¶48

O.P.(FC) No.569 of 2022

¶49

APPENDIX OF OP (FC) 569/2022

¶50

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶51

Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF O.P NO. 219/2021 DATED 6/3/2021 OF THE FAMILY COURT, KASARAGOD Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 1/1/2022 IN OP 219/2021 OF THE FAMILY COURT, KASARAGOD Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE IA 1/2022 IN OP 219/2021 DATED 24/5/2022 OF THE FAMILY COURT, KASARAGOD Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 6/7/2022 IN IA 1/2022 IN OP 219/2021 OF THE FAMILY COURT, KASARAGOD

¶52

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED IA NO. 1/2022 IN OP 219/2021 DATED 22/7/2022 OF THE FAMILY COURT, KASARAGOD

Shalini v. Lakshmanan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shalini v. Lakshmanan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aneena Elizabeth Varghese Vs Jayson Abraham

Jayson Abraham, Vs Aneena Elizabeth Varghese

Jayson Abraham Vs Aneena Elizaneth Varghese

Shaik Musthafa Vs Shajeena

Sabu M Varghese Vs Vimala Rosy A.A

Sruthy K. Vs Sudheesh M.