Allowed

Smitha .K v. Harish ,M

Kerala HC3 Jun 2022Tr.P(C)/142/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a transfer petition under Section 24 CPI invoking Supreme Court precedents on the convenience of women. The Court ordered transfer of O.P.No.1212/2021 from Family Court, Palakkad to Family Court, Ottappalam to consolidate proceedings with an existing divorce petition.

What did the court decide?

Transfer of O.P.No.1212/2021 from Family Court, Palakkad to Family Court, Ottappalam.

Smitha .K Vs Harish ,M — Kerala HC (2022) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

TR.P(C) NO. 142 OF 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

¶6

FRIDAY, THE 3^RD DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 13TH JYAISHTA, 1944

¶7

TR.P(C) NO. 142 OF 2022

¶8

OP 1212/2021 OF FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD

¶9

PETITIONER/S:

¶10

1 SMITHA .K, AGED 48 YEARS, DAUGHTER OF LATE SUKUMARAN NAIR, KANNATH KALAM VEEDU, VENGASSERY POST,OTTAPPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-679 516.

¶11

2 SUKUMARI, AGED 72 YEARS, WIFE OF LATE SUKUMARAN NAIR, KANNATH KALAM VEEDU, VENGASSERY POST, OTTAPPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-679 516.

¶12

BY ADV R.SREEHARI

¶13

RESPONDENT/S:

¶14

1 HARISH M, AGED 53 YEARS, SON OF SREEKUMARAN, "KISMET", ELAPPULLY POST, PALAKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678622. 2 VIJAYA RAGHAVAN, AGED 52 YEARS, SON OF NARAYANAN MENON, KANNATH KALAM VEEDU, VENGASSERY POST,OTTAPPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-679 516.

¶15

BY ADVS. Rajesh Narayan Narayan K.RAJESH SUKUMARAN P.S.VISHNU

¶16

THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

TR.P(C) NO. 142 OF 2022

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The transfer petition is filed under Section 24 of the

¶21

Code of Civil Procedure, seeking to transfer O.P.No.1212/2021 (Annexure-2) from the Family Court, Palakkad to the Family Court, Ottappalam.

¶22

The petitioner's case, in brief, in the memorandum of transfer petition is that; the 1^st petitioner is the wife of the 1^st respondent. The 2^nd petitioner is the mother of the 1^st petitioner and the 2^nd respondent is the brother-in-law of the 1^st petitioner. The marital relationship between the 1^st petitioner and the 1^st respondent is estranged. The petitioner has filed O.P.No.288/2021 (Annexure-1) before the Family Court, Ottappalam, seeking a decree of divorce. As counterblast to Annexure-1, the 1^st respondent has filed Annexure-2, seeking a decree for return of money and gold ornaments. The petitioners are residing in Palakkad. The 2^nd petitioner is 72 years of age and is infirm. The 1^st

¶23

TR.P(C) NO. 142 OF 2022

¶24

¶25

respondent has not sought for transfer of Annexure-1. Therefore, necessarily he would have to travel to Ottappalam to contest Annexure-1. It would be convenient, if Annexure-1 and Annexure-2 are tried by the same court, which would save judicial time and avoid conflict of decisions. More over, there is no person to chaperone the petitioners from Ottappalam to Palakkad. Hence, the transfer petition.

¶26

Heard; the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent. Service is complete on the 2^nd respondent.

¶27

The law with respect to transfer of proceedings, particularly matrimonial disputes, is no longer resintegra, in view of the categoric declaration of law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sumitha Sing V. Kumar Sanjay and another [(2001)10 SCC 41)], Mona Aresh Goel V. Aresh Satya Goel [(2000) 9 SCC 255], Vaishali Shridhar Jagtap V. Shridhar Vishwanath Jagtap [AIR 2016 SC 3584] and Santhini V. Vijaya Venkatesh [2017

¶28

¶29

TR.P(C) NO. 142 OF 2022

¶30

(4) KLT 415 (SC)]. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that it is the convenience of the woman and children that has to be looked into, while ordering the transfer of a case from one Court to another.

¶31

In the light of the uncontroverted pleadings and materials on record, the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the afore-cited decisions, I am inclined to exercise the discretionary powers of this Court under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶32

In the result, I allow the transfer petition by ordering transfer of O.P.No.1212/2021 from the Family Court, Palakkad to the Family Court, Ottappalam. The Registry shall forward a copy of this judgment to the Family Court, Palakkad with instructions to forthwith transmit the records in Annexure-2 to the Family Court, Ottappalam. The parties would be at liberty to move the Family Court, Ottappalam to seek for the consolidation and joint trial of all the proceedings between them. The

¶33

TR.P(C) NO. 142 OF 2022

¶34

¶35

Family Court, Ottappalam shall, immediately on receipt of the records in Annexure-2, post Annexure-2 along with

Annexure-1.

Sd/-

C.S.DIAS, JUDGE

rkc/03.06.22

TR.P(C) NO. 142 OF 2022

¶41

¶42

APPENDIX OF TR.P(C) 142/2022

¶43

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶44

Annexure1	PHOTO COPY	OF	THE PETITION FILED IN
	O.P.NO.288/2	021,	DATED 20/04/2021, ON
	THE FILE OF	THE	FAMILY COURT, OTTAPPALAM
	FILED BY TH 1ST RESPONDE	E 1ST NT	PETITIONER AGAINST THE
Annexure2	PHOTO COPY	OF	THE PETITION FILED IN
	O.P.NO.1212/	2021,	DATED 11/11/2021 ON
	THE FILE O	F THE	FAMILY COURT,PALAKAKD
	FILED BY TH	E 1ST	RESPONDENT AGAINST THE
	PETITIONERS	AND 2	ND RESPONDENT

Smitha .K v. Harish ,M

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smitha .K v. Harish ,M

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

T. Abdul Vahab Vs Iqbal College Trust

Boyce Rubber Estates Private Limited, Vs Kodikuthy Sree Subramanya Swamy Temple

Habeeba Vs Jijin

Vanaja Vs Muralidharan

Keerthi G.Panicker Vs Shiva P.

Augusthy Vs Biju