Allowed

Jijiraj v. Vipinkrishna S. Prasad

Kerala HC30 May 2022Tr.P(C)/169/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Respondent filed a money recovery suit as a counter-blast to petitioners' divorce proceeding. Petitioner, wife in the divorce case, sought transfer from Chavara to Attingal Family Court citing hardship and distance. Court allowed transfer to facility wife is closer for convenience.

What did the court decide?

Transfer of O.P. No. 393 of 2020 from Family Court, Chavara to Family Court, Attingal, with direction to transmit records immediately.

Jijiraj Vs Vipinkrishna S. Prasad — Kerala HC (2022) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

¶4

MONDAY, THE 30^TH DAY OF MAY 2022 / 9TH JYAISHTA, 1944

¶5

TR.P.(C) NO.169 OF 2021

¶6

(SEEKING TO TRANSFER OP 393/2020 OF FAMILY COURT,

¶7

CHAVARA TO FAMILY COURT, ATTINGAL)

¶8

PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 JIJIRAJ, AGED 21 YEARS, D/O.VIJAYARAJAN, VIJI BHAVAN, MULLARAMKODE DESOM, MANAMBOOR P.O, OTTOOR VILLAGE, VARKALA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶10

2 VIJAYARAJAN, AGED 59 YEARS, VIJI BHAVAN, MULLARAMKODE DESOM, MANAMBOOR P.O, OTTOOR VILLAGE, VARKALA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,. 3 JAYA, AGED 45 YEARS, W/O.VIJAYARAJAN, VIJI BHAVAN, MULLARAMKODE DESOM, MANAMBOOR P.O, OTTOOR VILLAGE, VARKALA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,.

¶11

BY ADV LATHEESH SEBASTIAN

¶12

RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:

¶13

VIPINKRISHNA S. PRASAD, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.SIVAPRASAD, VARSHA, CLAPPANA NORTH P.O, CLAPPANA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT – 690 525.

¶14

THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.05.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

Tr.P.(C) No.169 of 2021

¶16

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Annexure-A1 petition is filed by the respondent as O.P.No.393 of 2020 is pending before the Family Court,

¶19

Chavara. The said O.P. was filed for recovery of money from the petitioners. The first petitioner has filed O.P.No.1498 of 2020 before the Family Court, Attingal for divorce.

¶20

The case of the petitioner is that, as a

¶21

counter blast to O.P.No.1498 of 2020 and O.P.No.491 of 2020, the respondent has filed O.P.No.393 of 2020 before the Family Court, Chavara.

¶22

The counsel for the petitioner submits that the first petitioner is aged 21 years have a minor child who is less than 2 years old. She finds it very difficult to travel more than 17 kilometers to attend the court

¶23

Tr.P.(C) No.169 of 2021

¶24

¶25

proceedings at Chavara, whereas the Family Court, Attingal is less than 10 kilometers away from her residence.

¶26

Despite service of notice, the respondent has not appeared.

¶27

I am satisfied with the reasons for transfer

¶28

stated by the petitioner. Moreover, as held by the Honourable Supreme Court in Sumita Singh v Kumar Sanjay and another [(2001) 10 SCC 41, Rajani Kishor Pardeshi v Kishor Babulal Pardeshi [(2005) 12 SCC 237] and a plethora of other decisions, in transfer petitions arising from matrimonial cases, convenience of the wife should be preferred over that of the husband.

¶29

In the result, the Tr.P(C) No.169 of 2021 is allowed. O.P.No.393 of 2020 pending on the files of the Family Court, Chavara is withdrawn and transferred to the Family Court, Attingal, where O.P.No.491 of 2020 and

¶30

Tr.P.(C) No.169 of 2021

¶31

¶32

O.P.No.1498 of 2020 are pending. The Family Court, Chavara is directed to transmit the records immediately to the Family Court, Attingal and on receipt of the records, the Family Court, Attingal shall issue fresh notice to both the parties and dispose of the case in accordance with law.

¶33

Transfer Petition is allowed.

¶34

¶35

Tr.P.(C) No.169 of 2021

¶36

¶37

APPENDIX OF TR.P(C) 169/2021

¶38

PETITIONER ANNEXURES:

¶39

ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL PETITION IN OP NO. 1498/2020 OF FAMILY COURT, ATTINGAL. ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL PETITION IN OP NO. 393/2020 OF FAMILY COURT, CHAVARA.

Jijiraj v. Vipinkrishna S. Prasad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jijiraj v. Vipinkrishna S. Prasad

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

Thankappan Vs Kerala State Pollution Control Board

Vodafone Essar Cellular Ltd. Vs Kerala Stsate Pollution Control Board

P.v.Janardhanan Nambiar Vs Kerala State Pollution Control Board

Leena.P.K Vs Aneesh.C.I

Santha Aravindan Vs Neethu K. S.

Sruthi L. Nair Vs Deepu K. Nair