Allowed

Nayana Venu v. Vineeth T.K

Kerala HC14 Jun 2022Tr.P(C)/153/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a transfer petition to move an open petition for maintenance from the Family Court, Kasaragod, to the Family Court, Kannur. The transfer facilitates consolidation with other pending cases between the parties in Kannur, ensuring joint trial for judicial efficiency.

What did the court decide?

Transfer of O.P No.18/2022 from the Family Court, Kasaragod to the Family Court, Kannur for consolidation and joint trial.

Nayana Venu Vs Vineeth T.K — Matrimonial and Divorce | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 24TH JYAISHTA, 1944

¶5

TR.P(C) NO. 153 OF 2022

¶6

TO TRANSFER OP 18/2022 OF FAMILY COURT, KASARAGOD TO THE FAMILY
COURT, KANNUR

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

NAYANA VENU
AGED 28 YEARS
D/O VENU, POTTANPARAMBIL HOUSE,
MEENACHIL, ARUNAPURAM, P.O.EDANAD,
KOTTAYAM, PIN-685674
NOW RESIDING AT CHEMBAKASSERI HOUSE,
C/O AJESH ALIAS AJOOTTAN, KARA,
P.O.ANNUR, PAYYANNUR TALUK,
KANNUR DISTRICT. PIN-670307.
BY ADVS.
O.V.MANIPRASAD
JOSE ANTONY
S.SHIV SHANKAR
SRUTHYMON P.R

¶9

RESPONDENT:

¶10

VINEETH T.K, AGED 35 YEARS
S/O RAVI P.K, RESIDING AT KIZHAKKE MADATHIL HOUSE,
PANATHADY,
P.O PANATHADY,KALLAR VILLAGE, VELLARIKUNDU TALUK,
KASARAGOD DIST. PIN- 671532

¶11

THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 14.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶12

¶13

Tr.P (C) No.153 of 2022

¶14

Dated this the 14^th day of June, 2022.

¶15

ORDER

¶16

The transfer petition is filed under Sec.24 of the

¶17

Code of Civil Procedure, seeking to transfer O.P No.18/2022 (Annexure A1) from the Family Court, Kasaragod to the Family Court, Kannur.

¶18

The petitioner’s case, in brief, in the memorandum of transfer petition is that, she is the wife of the respondent. They have a daughter born in their wedlock. Since the respondent has deserted the petitioner and the child, and has refused to maintain them, the petitioner has filed M.C. No.55/2022 (Annexure A2) under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Payyannur. She has also filed O.P No.282/2022 (Annexure A3) and M.C. No.62/2022 (Annexure A4) before the Family Court, Kannur, seeking a decree for return of gold ornaments

¶19

¶20

Tr.P (C) No.153 of 2022

¶21

and also for an order of maintenance under Section 125(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The petitioner and the child are residing in Payyannur. The respondent has not sought for the transfer of Annexures A2 to A4. Therefore, necessarily, he would have to appear before the Courts at Kannur. On the other hand, it would be difficult for the petitioner and the child to travel to Kasaragod to defend Annexure A1. Hence, the transfer petition.

¶22

Heard; Sri. O.V. Maniprasad, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Even though notice has been served on the respondent, there is no appearance for him.

¶23

The law with respect to transfer of proceedings, particularly matrimonial disputes, is no longer res-integra, in view of the categoric declaration of law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sumitha Sing

¶24

V. Kumar Sanjay and another [2002 KHC 1889], Mona Aresh Goel V. Aresh Satya Goel [2000 KHC

¶25

¶26

Tr.P (C) No.153 of 2022

¶27

1835], Vaishali Shridhar Jagtap V. Shridhar Vishwanath Jagtap [2016 KHC 6489] and Santhini V. Vijaya Venkatesh [2017 (5) KHC 48]. 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.

¶28

In the light of the law laid down in the aforecited decisions, the uncontroverted pleadings and materials on record, the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that Annexures A3 and A4 are pending before the Family Court, Kannur, and it would be convenient for all parties if the cases are consolidated and jointly tried by the same court, which would save precious judicial time and avoid conflict of decisions, I am inclined to exercise the discretionary powers of this Court under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure and allow the transfer petition.

¶29

¶30

Tr.P (C) No.153 of 2022

¶31

In the result, I allow the transfer petition by ordering the transfer of O.P No.18/2022 from the Family Court, Kasaragod to the Family Court, Kannur. The parties would be at liberty to move the Family Court, Kannur and seek for consolidation and joint trial of all the cases between them. The Registry shall forthwith forward a copy of this judgment to the Family Court, Kasaragod, with instructions to forthwith transmit the records in Annexure A1 to the Family Court, Kannur. The Family Court, Kannur, shall, immediately on the receipt of the records in O.P No.18/2022, call Annexure A1 along with Annexures A3 and A4.

SD/-

C.S.DIAS, JUDGE

rmm/14.6.2022

Tr.P (C) No.153 of 2022

¶37

APPENDIX

¶38

PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1A TRUE COPY OF THE OP NO. 18/2022
PENDING BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT,
KASARAGOD
Annexure A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE MC NO.55/2022 BEFORE
THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS COURT,
PAYYANNUR
ANNEXURE A3 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION IN O.P.
NO.282/2022 OF THE FAMILY COURT, KANNUR
ANNEXURE A4 A TRUE COPY OF M.C. NO.62/2022 PENDING
BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, KANNUR

Nayana Venu v. Vineeth T.K

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nayana Venu v. Vineeth T.K

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

Mohanan Vs Shylaja

The District Collector, Vs Saiju

Soumya.I.v Vs N.Sreekumar

T.K.Ananda Padmanabhan Vs District Collector

Abdul Salim Vs Chellappa

St Sebastians Sadhujana Sahaya Sangam Vs Paul . S