Allowed

Smitha N v. Vs Prasad K.B.

Kerala HC6 Jul 2022Tr.P(C)/6/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This transfer petition under Section 24 of the CPC sought to move Order No.176/2020 from the Family Court, Muvattupuzha to Ettumanoor. The petitioner argued that as she now resides in Ettumanoor and the respondent filed a related suit there, consolidation was necessary. The High Court allowed the transfer to enable joint trial and save judicial time.

What did the court decide?

Opposite Order No.176/2020 transferred from Family Court, Muvattupuzha to Family Court, Ettumanoor for consolidation and joint trial.

Smitha N v Vs Prasad K.B. — 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 15TH ASHADHA, 1944
TR.P(C) NO. 6 OF 2022

¶5

IN OP NO.176/2020 OF THE FAMILY COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SMITHA N V
D/O VISWANADHAN,
W/O PRASAD, AGED 42 YEARS, NADUVATHUMURI HOUSE,
PUNNAYAM KARA, THURUTHI, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK,
ERNAKULAM DIST, NOW RESIDING AT C/O VIJAYACHANDRAN,
REMYA NIVAS, ETTUMANOOR, KOTTAYAM-686 583.
KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686583

¶8

BY ADV M.J.SANTHOSH

¶9

RESPONDENT:

¶10

PRASAD K.B.
AGED 47 YEARS
S/O BHASKARAN,
PUTHANTHARAYIL HOUSE,
KULASEGARAMANGALAM VILLAGE,
VAIKAM TALUK, KOTTAYAM- 686 608, PIN - 686608

¶11

THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

TR.P(C) NO.6 OF 2022 2

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The transfer petition is filed under Sec.24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking to transfer O.P No.176/2020 from the Family Court, Muvattupuzha to the Family Court, Ettumanoor.

¶15

The petitioner’s case, in brief, in the memorandum of transfer petition is that, she is the wife of the respondent. The petitioner has instituted O.P. No.176/2020 before the Family Court, Muvattupuzha, seeking a decree for recovery of money and gold ornaments from the respondent The respondent has now filed O.P.(Div) No.356/2020 before the Family Court, Ettumanoor. The petitioner is now employed in Ettumanoor. She is staying as a paying guest in Ettumanoor. Therefore, it would be convenient to her, if O.P. No.176/2020 is also transferred from the Family

¶16

Court, Muvattupuzha to the Family Court, Ettumanoor, so

¶17

TR.P(C) NO.6 OF 2022 3

¶18

that the case can be consolidated and jointly tried along with O.P.(Div) No.356/2020. Hence, the transfer petition.

¶19

Heard; M.J. Santhosh, the learned counsel

¶20

appearing for the petitioner. Even though notice has been served on the respondent, there is no appearance for him.

¶21

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

¶22

In the light of the law laid down in the afore-

¶23

TR.P(C) NO.6 OF 2022 4

¶24

cited decisions, the uncontroverted pleadings and materials on record, the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, especially the fact that the petitioner herself is seeking for the transfer of O.P. No.176/2020 from the Family Court, Muvattupuzha to the Family Court, Ettumanoor, so that the cases can be consolidated and jointly tried along with O.P.(Div) No.356/2020 filed by the respondent, I am inclined to exercise the discretionary powers of this Court under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure and order the transfer of O.P.No.176/2020 from the Family Court, Muvattupuzha to the Family Court, Ettumanoor, so that the cases can be consolidated and jointly tried, which would save precious judicial time and avoid conflict of decisions.

¶25

In the result, I allow the transfer petition as follows:(i) O.P No.176/2020 is transferred from the Family

¶26

Court, Muvattupuzha to the Family Court, Ettumanoor.

¶27

TR.P(C) NO.6 OF 2022 5

¶28

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

¶29

(iii) The Registry shall forward a copy of this order to the Family Court, Muvattupuzha with instructions to forthwith transmit the records in O.P. No.176/2020 to the Family Court, Ettumanoor.

¶30

(iv) The Family Court, Ettumanoor shall, immediately

¶31

on the receipt of the records in O.P. No.176/2020, post the

¶32

case along with O.P.(Div.) No.356/2020.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

C.S.DIAS, JUDGE

¶35

rmm/06/07/2022

Smitha N v. Vs Prasad K.B.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smitha N v. Vs Prasad K.B.

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

Nadiya Krishnan, Vs Rejin Ravi

Sheeba S.R. Vs Vinod D.