Dismissed

Juby Joseph v. Jithin K Abraham

Kerala HC2 Sept 2022Tr.P(C)/132/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This transfer petition was dismissed. The Court held that the petitioner's current employment in Alappuzha does not justify transferring the Original Petitions filed in Pathanamthitta, noting her permanent residence is equidistant from both courts and citing the illness and employment of respondents outside as factors against transfer.

What did the court decide?

The transfer petition fails and is dismissed; no order for transfer is made.

Juby Joseph Vs Jithin K Abraham — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 2^ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022 / 11TH BHADRA, 1944

¶5

TR.P.(C) NO.132 OF 2022

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER IN O.P.NO.1401/2019 OF FAMILY COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

JUBY JOSEPH, AGED 33 YEARS, D/O. T.D. JOSEPH, KANNEL THOTTUKADAVIL, PANDANKERRY P.O, EDATHUWA, KUTTANAD, ALAPPUZHA-689 573.

¶9

BY ADVS.JESTINA MARIAM JOSEPH LITISHYA FRANCIS

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 JITHIN K. ABRAHAM, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O. ABY ABRAHAM, KOCHUTHUNDIYIL, KOZHENCHERRY, NARANGANAM P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA-689 642.

¶12

2 ABY ABRAHAM, AGED 65 YEARS, D/O. ABRAHAM, KOCHUTHUNDIYIL, KOZHENCHERRY, NARANGANAM P.O, PATHANAMTHITTA-689 642.

¶13

3 CICILY ABRAHAM, AGED 61 YEARS, W/O. ABY ABRAHAM, KOCHUTHUNDIYIL, KOZHENCHERRY, NARANGANAM P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA-689 642.

¶14

BY ADVS.GEORGE ABRAHAM PACHAYIL TOMS MATHEW(K/1010/2004) KRISHNASANKAR D.(K/726/2022)

¶15

THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.09.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

-2-

¶17

TR.P.(C) NO.132 OF 2022

¶18

C.S. DIAS, J. -------------------------------------------------------Tr.P.(C) No.132 of 2022

¶19

-------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 2^nd day of September, 2022

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The transfer petition is filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure to transfer O.P.No.1401 of 2019 and O.P.(Div.) No.1402 of 2019 from the Family Court, Pathanamthitta to the Family Court, Alappuzha.

¶22

The petitioner's case, in brief, in the memorandum of transfer petition is that she is the wife of the 1^st respondent. Respondents 2 and 3 are the parents of the 1^st respondent. The marital relationship between the petitioner and the 1^st respondent is strained. The petitioner has filed O.P.No.1401 of 2019 (Annexure-I) against the respondents for a decree for return of money and gold ornaments and O.P.(Div.) No.1402 of 2019 (Annexure-II) against the 1^st respondent for a decree of divorce. The petitioner is currently working as Assistant Professor in Mar Gregorious College, Alappuzha. The petitioner has

¶23

-3-

¶24

TR.P.(C) NO.132 OF 2022

¶25

shifted her residence to Alappuzha. The Family Court, Pathanamthitta is at a distance of more than 71 kilometers from the petitioner's present residence and would take her about 2½ hours to travel to the said court. Hence, Annexures-I and II may be transferred from the Family Court, Pathanamthitta to the Family Court, Alappuzha.

¶26

The respondents have filed a counter affidavit, vehemently opposing the transfer petition. They have contended that the petitioner herself has filed Annexures-I and II against them before the Family Court, Pathanamthitta. The petitioner's permanent residence is at Edathuwa, which is less than 40 kilometers from the Family Court, Pathanamthitta. In fact, the Family Courts' at Pathanamthitta and Alappuzha are equi-distant from the residence of the petitioner. Therefore, no inconvenience would be caused to the petitioner in Annexures-I and II being tried at the Family Court, Pathanamthitta. Moreover, the 1^st respondent is employed in a shipping company and is on the high seas. The respondents 2 and 3 are both old

¶27

-4-

¶28

TR.P.(C) NO.132 OF 2022

¶29

and infirm. Annexures R2(1) to R2(4) substantiate their ill-health. Therefore, the respondents pray that the transfer petition may be dismissed.

¶30

Heard; Smt. Jestina Mariam Joseph, the learned

¶31

counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. George Abraham, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶32

The point is whether Annexures-I and II are to be transferred.

¶33

Admittedly, the petitioner herself filed AnnexuresI and II before the Family Court, Pathanamthitta. Even the cause title of the transfer petition shows that her permanent residence is at Edathuwa, Kuttanad, Alappuzha. It is common knowledge that the distance from Edathuwa to Pathanamthitta and Alappuzha is almost the same. The original petitions are of the year 2019. Just because the petitioner has got an employment in a college in Alappuzha is not a ground to transfer the cases.

¶34

A Division Bench of this Court in Vidhya

¶35

-5-

¶36

TR.P.(C) NO.132 OF 2022

¶37

Mundekkat v. Akhilesh Jayaram [2021 (6) KHC 506]

¶38

has categorically held that there is no invariable rule that,

¶39

whenever a wife makes a request pointing out her inconvenience, this Court is obliged to exercise the powers under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶40

It is evident from Annexures R2(1) to R2(4) that respondents 2 and 3 are indisposed and under treatment. Furthermore, the 1^st respondent is employed abroad. On an overall consideration of pleadings and materials on record, I am not inclined to exercise the discretionary powers of this Court under Section 24 to order the transfer of Annexures-I and II at this stage. The Family Court, Pathanamthitta shall make every endeavour to dispose of Annexures-I and II as expeditiously as possible.

¶41

The transfer petition fails and is dismissed.

Sd/-

C.S. DIAS

JUDGE

bpr

-6-

TR.P.(C) NO.132 OF 2022

¶48

APPENDIX OF TR.P(C) 132/2022

¶49

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES

¶50

ANNEXURE 1 TRUE COPY OF O.P NO. 1401/2019 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA. ANNEXURE II TRUE COPY OF O.P NO. 1402/2019 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶51

RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES

¶52

ANNEXURE R(2)1 MEDICAL STATEMENT / CERTIFICATE DATED 08/08/2020, ISSUED BY PUSHPAGIRI HEART INSTITUTE, THIRUVALLA, WITH REGARD TO BYEPASS OPERATION IF THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶53

ANNEXURE R(2)2 DISCHARGE SUMMARY ISSUED BY MGM MUTHOOT HOSPITAL, PATHANAMTHITTA DATED 19/05/2022, REGARDING THE HOSPITALISATION OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DUE TO A ROAD ACCIDENT.

¶54

ANNEXURE R(2)3 TREATMENT SUMMARY ISSUED BY PUSHPAGIRI MEDICAL COLLEGE, DATED 30/05/2022, WITH REGARD TO THE TREATMENT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE R(2)4 MEDICAL CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY KARUNYA MEDICAL CENTRE AND DIABETIC CLINIC REGARDING THE HEALTH CONDITION OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

Juby Joseph v. Jithin K Abraham

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Juby Joseph v. Jithin K Abraham

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

Narayanan Nambudirippad Vs Unnikrishnan .v.M

Sony Babu M B Vs Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd.

Najuma.S Vs Muhammed Rafi

Mymoona Vs Shamsumol

N.Radhakrishnan Vs President, Pathiriyad Agricultural Improvement Co. Operative Society

N.Meera Vs Krishnankutty