Allowed

Nadiya Krishnan, v. Rejin Ravi

Kerala HC6 Jul 2022Tr.P(C)/20/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

When transfer petitions were filed by both spouses seeking to move family disputes to different courts, the Court held that convenience of a power of attorney holder is not a valid ground for transfer. Prioritizing the minor child's welfare and noting similar inconvenience for both sides, the Court dismissed the wife's petition and allowed the husband’s petitions to consolidate the cases in Ernaku

What did the court decide?

Transfer of O.P. Nos. 845/2021 and 846/2021 from Family Court, Ettumanoor to Family Court, Ernakulam for joint trial; dismissal of the petition to transfer O.P. No. 707/2021.

Nadiya Krishnan, Vs Rejin Ravi — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 6^TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 15TH ASHADHA, 1944

¶5

TR.P(C) NO. 152 OF 2022

¶6

IN OP 845/2021 OF FAMILY COURT, ETTUMANNOOR

¶7

PETITIONERS:

¶8

1REJIN RAVI
AGED 36 YEARS
S/O. RAVEENDRAN, PALLAVI HOUSE, TPRA - 82, RIVER LANE,
UDAYA ROAD, CHAMPAKKARA, THYKOODAM, VYTTILLA,
ERNAKULAM - 682019.

¶9

2PANKAJAVALLI C.S.
AGED 64 YEARS
W/O. RAVEENDRAN, PALLAVI HOUSE, TPRA - 82, RIVER LANE,
UDAYA ROAD, CHAMPAKKARA, THYKOODAM, VYTTILLA,
ERNAKULAM - 682019.

¶10

3RAVEENDRAN K
AGED 76 YEARS
S/O. KESAVAN, PALLAVI HOUSE, TPRA - 82, RIVER LANE,
UDAYA ROAD, CHAMPAKKARA, THYKOODAM, VYTTILLA,
ERNAKULAM - 682019.

¶11

BY ADVS.
C.V.MANUVILSAN
O.A.ANJU
SARATH KRISHNAN T.
FARHAN M.M.

¶12

RESPONDENT:

¶13

NADIYA KRISHNAN
AGED 36 YEARS
D/O. KRISHNAN P.A., RESIDING AT ANAND BHAVAN, PERUVA P.O,
KUNNAPPALLY, VAIKOM TALK, KOTTAYAM - 686616.

¶14

BY ADVS.
SANTHOSH PETER (MAMALAYIL)

¶15

TR.P(C) NOS.20,152 & 158 OF 2022

¶16

2

¶17

P.N.ANOOP CHITHRA PRABHA SMITHA PILLAI

¶18

THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 06.07.2022, ALONG WITH Tr.P(C).20/2022, 158/2022,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

TR.P(C) NOS.20,152 & 158 OF 2022

¶20

¶21

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶22

PRESENT

¶23

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 15TH ASHADHA, 1944

¶24

TR.P(C) NO. 20 OF 2022

¶25

IN OP 707/2021 OF FAMILY COURT,ERNAKULAM

¶26

PETITIONERS:

¶27

1NADIYA KRISHNAN,
AGED 36 YEARS
D/O.KRISHNAN.P.A., ANANDABHAVAN, PERUVA P.O.,
VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 616.

¶28

2P.A.KRISHNAN,
AGED 72 YEARS
ANANDABHAVAN, PERUVA P.O., VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM
DISTRICT, PIN-686 616.

¶29

3SUDHARMA KRISHNAN,
AGED 66 YEARS
ANANDABHAVAN, PERUVA P.O., VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM
DISTRICT, PIN-686 616.
BY ADVS.
SANTHOSH PETER (MAMALAYIL)
P.N.ANOOP

¶30

RESPONDENT/S:

¶31

REJIN RAVI,
AGED 36 YEARS
S/O.RAVEENDRAN, PALLAVI H, TPRA 82, RIVER LANE,
UDAYA ROAD, VYTTILA P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 019.

¶32

BY ADVS.
C.V.MANUVILSAN

¶33

TR.P(C) NOS.20,152 & 158 OF 2022

¶34

4

¶35

O.A.ANJU
SARATH KRISHNAN T.
FARHAN M.M.

¶36

THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 06.07.2022, ALONG WITH Tr.P(C).152/2022 AND
CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶37

TR.P(C) NOS.20,152 & 158 OF 2022

¶38

¶39

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶40

PRESENT

¶41

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 15TH ASHADHA, 1944
TR.P(C) NO. 158 OF 2022

¶42

 IN OPHMA 846/2021 OF FAMILY COURT, ETTUMANOOR

¶43

PETITIONER:

¶44

REJIN RAVI.,
AGED 36 YEARS
S/O. RAVEENDRAN, PALLAVI HOUSE, TPRA 82, RIVER LANE,
UDAYA ROAD, CHAMPAKKARA, THYKOODAM, VYTTILA,
ERNAKULAM 682 019.

¶45

BY ADVS.
C.V.MANUVILSAN
O.A.ANJU
SARATH KRISHNAN T.
FARHAN M.M.

¶46

RESPONDENT:

¶47

NADIYA KRISHNAN,
AGED 36 YEARS
D/O. KRISHNAN, P.A., RESIDING AT ANAND BHAVAN,
PERUVA P.O., KUNNAPPALLY, VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM 686
610.

¶48

BY ADVS.
SANTHOSH PETER Peter
P.N.ANOOP(K/1451/2003)
M.S.SANDEEP SUDHAKARAN(K/000598/2018)

¶49

THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 06.07.2022, ALONG WITH Tr.P(C).152/2022 AND
CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶50

TR.P(C) NOS.20,152 & 158 OF 2022

¶51

¶52

COMMON ORDER

¶53

As these transfer petitions are between the same parties, they have been disposed of by this common order.

¶54

Tr.P.(C) No.20/2022 is filed by the wife and her parents against the husband, seeking to transfer O.P. No.707/2021 from the Family Court, Ernakulam to the Family Court, Ettumanoor. Tr.P(C) No.152/2022 is filed by the husband and his parents against the wife, seeking to transfer O.P. No.845/2021 from the Family Court, Ettumanoor to the Family Court, Ernakulam. Tr.P. (C)No.158/2022 is filed by the husband against the wife, seeking to transfer O.P. No.846/2021 from the Family Court, Ettumanoor to the Family Court, Ernakulam. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their status in Tr.P.(C)No.20/2022, which is the most comprehensive transfer petition. The marriage between the Rejin Ravi (the husband) and Nadiya Krishnan (the

¶55

TR.P(C) NOS.20,152 & 158 OF 2022

¶56

7

¶57

wife) was solemnized on 06.09.2015. They have a six year old child born in their wedlock. Due to the marital estrangement between the couple, the husband has filed O.P. No.707/2021 (Annexure 1) before the Family Court, Ernakulam against the wife, seeking an order for the permanent custody of the child. The wife and her parents have filed O.P. No.845/2021 (Annexure 2) against the husband and his parents, before the Family Court, Ettumanoor, seeking a decree for return of patrimony and other ancillary reliefs. The wife has also filed O.P. (H.M.A)No.846/2021(Annexure 3) before the same court against the husband, seeking a decree of divorce. The wife and her parents seek for transfer of Annexure 1 from the Family Court, Ernakulam to the Family Court, Ettumanoor. On the contrary, the husband and his parents seek for transfer of Annexure 2 from the Family Court, Ettumanoor

¶58

to the Family Court, Ernakulam. The husband also seeks transfer of Annexure 3 from the Family Court, Kottayam to

¶59

TR.P(C) NOS.20,152 & 158 OF 2022
8

¶60

the Family Court, Ernakulam. Both sides allege inconvenience to either side. Hence, the transfer petitions.

¶61

Heard; Santhosh Peter, the learned counsel appearing for the wife and her parents and Sri. C.V.Manuvilsan, the learned counsel appearing for the husband and his parents.

¶62

The common point that arises for consideration in the three transfer petitions is whether the transfer petitions are to be allowed.

¶63

On a consideration of the pleadings and materials on record, it is undisputed that the wife is employed as Nursing Assistant Professor at AIIMS Hospital, Bhubaneswar. The six year old child of the couple is residing at Vyttila, Ernakulam and pursuing his studies in a school at Ernakulam.

¶64

The pivotal point of the wife is that she is represented by her father and the power of attorney

¶65

TR.P(C) NOS.20,152 & 158 OF 2022

¶66

9

¶67

holder, who is residing at Vaikom, Kottayam. Therefore, it would convenient for him to contest all the cases at Family Court, Ettumanoor.

¶68

7 The Division Bench of this Court in Vidhya Mundekkat v. Akhilesh Jayaram [2021(6) KHC 506], has categorically held that there is no invariable rule that whenever a wife makes a request pointing out a convenience, this Court is obliged to exercise its powers under Section24 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶69

8.Similarly, this Court in Mini Antony v. Savio Aruja [2022(3) KHC 42] has held that the inconvenience of a power of attorney holder can not be considered as a ground to exercise the discretionary powers of this Court under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶70

In the present case, admittedly, the wife is employed at Bhubaneswar. The husband and the child are residing at Ernakulam and the child is studying at Ernakulam. Therefore, it is the comparative hardship of

¶71

TR.P(C) NOS.20,152 & 158 OF 2022

¶72

¶73

the child, that has to be given due preference and weightage. Moreover, the distance from Vaikom to Ernakulam and Ettumanoor is almost the same. Thus, the inconvenience of the power of attorney holder is also untenable. In the above factual and legal matrix, I am not inclined to exercise the discretionary powers of this Court under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure in favour of the wife. On the contrary, I am inclined to exercise the discretionary powers in favour of the husband and order the transfer of Annexures 2 and 3 from the Family Court, Ettumanoor to the Family Court Ernakulam, so that the cases can be tried along with Annexure 1 at the Family Court, Ernakulam.

¶74

In result, I pass the following orders:-

¶75

(i) Tr.P.(C) No.20/2022 is dismissed.

¶76

(ii) Tr,.P.(C)No.152/2022 is allowed by ordering the

¶77

transfer of O.P No.845/2021 from the Family Court, Ettumanoor to the Family Court, Ernakulam.

¶78

TR.P(C) NOS.20,152 & 158 OF 2022

¶79

¶80

(iii) Tr.P.(C)No158/2022 is allowed by ordering the transfer of O.P. No.846/2021 from the Family Court, Ettumanoor to the Family Court, Ernakulam.

¶81

(iv) The parties would be at liberty to move the Family Court, Ernakulam and seek for consolidation and joint trial of all the cases between them.

¶82

(v) The wife would be at liberty to move the Family Court, Ernakulam and seek for the dispensation of her personal appearance.

¶83

(vi) The Registry shall forward a copy of this common order to the Family Court, Ettumanoor with instructions to forthwith transmit the records in Annexures 2 and 3 to the Family Court, Ernakulam.

¶84

(vii) The Family Court, Ernakulam shall, immediately on the receipt of the records in Annexures 2 and 3, post the case along with Annexure 1.

Sd/-

C.S.DIAS, JUDGE

rmm/07/07/2022

TR.P(C) NOS.20,152 & 158 OF 2022

¶89

¶90

A PPENDIX OF TR.P(C) 20/2022

¶91

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶92

Annexure 1TRUE COPY OF THE OP NO.707/2021 ON THE
FILE OF HON'BLE FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM.

¶93

Annexure 2TRUE COPY OF THE OP NO.845/2021 FILED BY
THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE FAMILY
COURT, KOTTAYAM AT ETTUMANOOR.

¶94

Annexure 3

¶95

TRUE COPY OF THE ABOVE OP(HMA) NO.846/2021
FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE
FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM AT ETTUMANOOR.

¶96

¶97

TR.P(C) NOS.20,152 & 158 OF 2022

¶98

APPENDIX OF TR.P(C) 158/2022

¶99

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶100

Annexure A1A TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE ORIGINAL PETITION
FILED BY THE PETITIONER AS OP (G &W) 707
OF 2021 PENDING BEFORE THE HONBLE FAMILY
COURT, ERNAKULAM.
Annexure A2A TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE PETITION IN OP
NO. 845 OF 2021 ON THE FILES OF HONBLE
FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM, AT ETTUMANNUR.
Annexure A3A TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE PETITION IN OP
(HMA), NO. 846 OF 2021 ON THE FILES OF
HONBLE FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM AT
ETTUMANNUR.
Annexure A4A TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE FEE RECEIPT
EVIDENCING PAYMENT OF SCHOOL FEE OF THE
MINOR CHILD BY THE PETITIONER TO THE
LITTLE LEGEND SCHOOL, CHAMPAKKARA,
ERNAKULAM.

¶101

¶102

TR.P(C) NOS.20,152 & 158 OF 2022

¶103

APPENDIX OF TR.P(C) 152/2022

¶104

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶105

Annexure A1A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORIGINAL PETITION
FILED BY THE PETITIONERS AS OP (G&W) 707
OF 2021 PENDING BEFORE THE HON'BLE FAMILY
COURT, ERNAKULAM.
Annexure A2A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PETITION IN OP NO.
845 OF 2021 ON THE FILES OF THE HON'BLE
FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM AT ETTUMANOOR.
Annexure A3A TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE PETITION IN OP
(HMA) NO. 846 OF 2021 ON THE FILES OF
HON'BLE FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM AT
ETTUMANOOR.
Annexure A4A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE FEE RECEIPTS
EVIDENCING PAYMENT OF SCHOOL FEE OF THE
MINOR CHILD BY THE PETITIONER TO THE
LITTLE LEGEND SCHOOL, CHAMPAKKARA,
ERNAKULAM.

Nadiya Krishnan, v. Rejin Ravi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nadiya Krishnan, v. Rejin Ravi

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

Manisha M. Vs Umesh Shanker

Karikkakom Sreechamundikshethram Trust Vs Padmakumariamma

Stella P.G. Vs Jerome K.P.

Bhanumathi Vs K. Abdurahiman Haji

Smitha N v Vs Prasad K.B.

Sheeba S.R. Vs Vinod D.