Partly allowed

Surya v. K.R.Srinath

Kerala HC6 Jun 2022Tr.P(C)/426/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common order dismisses the husband's transfer petition and allows the wife's petition to transfer matrimonial proceedings from Ettumanoor to Mavelikkara. The court prioritizes the wife's convenience over the husband's elderly parents' hardship and grants permanent exemption for the parents from personal appearance.

What did the court decide?

F.O.P.No.422/2021 transferred to Family Court, Mavelikkara; Husband's parents permanently exempted from personal appearance; parties free to seek consolidation.

Surya Vs K.R.Srinath — 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

MONDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 16TH JYAISHTA, 1944

¶5

TR.P(C) NO. 767 OF 2021

¶6

 IN THE PROCEEDIGNS IN OP 747/2021 OF FAMILY COURT, MAVELIKKARA
PETITIONERS:

¶7

1SRINATH,
AGED 36 YEARS
S/O. RAMAKRISHNAN, KANDATHIL PARAMBIL HOUSE,
ERAMALLOOR, PUTHUPPALLY VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-
686011, REPRESENTED THROUGH HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY
HOLDER, RAMAKRISHNAN, 3RD PETITIONER HEREIN.
2SUSHAMA,
AGED 66 YEARS
W/O. RAMAKRISHNAN, KANDATHIL PARAMBIL HOUSE,
ERAMALLOOR, PUTHUPPALLY VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-
686011.
3RAMAKRISHNAN,
AGED 71 YEARS
S/O. NARAYANAN, KANDATHIL PARAMBIL HOUSE, ERAMALLOOR,
PUTHUPPALLY VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686011.
BY ADVS.
S.RANJIT (KOTTAYAM)
GOKUL DAS V.V.H.

¶8

RESPONDENT:

¶9

SURYA,
AGED 33 YEARS, D/O. SULEKHA, CHATHAMMEL,
THIRUVAMBADIYIL SURYA NIVAS, EDAVANKATTU, CHERIYANADU
VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-689121.
BY ADVS.
S.SHANAVAS KHAN
S.INDU

¶10

THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 06.06.2022, ALONG WITH Tr.P(C).426/2021, THE COURT
ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶11

¶12

Tr.P (C) Nos.426 & 767 of 2021

¶13

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶14

PRESENT

¶15

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
MONDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 16TH JYAISHTA, 1944
TR.P(C) NO. 426 OF 2021

¶16

FOR TRANSFERRING OPDIV 422/2021 FROM THE FAMILY COURT,
ETTUMANOOR TO THE FAMILY COURT, MAVELIKARA

¶17

PETITIONER:

¶18

SURYA
AGED 33 YEARS
D/O.SULEKHA, SURYA NIVAS, EDAVANKATTU KARA,
CHERIANADU VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR TALUK, ALAPPUZHA
DISTRICT - 689 121.
BY ADVS.
S.SHANAVAS KHAN
S.INDU

¶19

RESPONDENT:

¶20

K.R.SRINATH
AGED 36 YEARS
S/O.RAMAKRISHNAN K.N., KANDATHIL PARAMBIL,
ERAMALLOOR, PUTHUPPALLY VILLAGE,
KOTTAYAM - 686 011.
BY ADVS.
S.RANJIT (KOTTAYAM)
GOKUL DAS V.V.H.

¶21

THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 06.06.2022, ALONG WITH Tr.P(C).767/2021, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

¶23

Tr.P (C) Nos.426 & 767 of 2021

¶24

Dated this the 6^th day of June, 2022. COMMON ORDER

¶25

As these transfer petitions are filed seeking transfer of proceedings instituted by both the wife and husband and the husband’s parents as against each other, they are being disposed of by this common order. The parties are, for the sake of convenience, referred to

¶26

as per their status in Tr.P.(C ) No.426/2021.

¶27

The petitioner – wife has filed Tr.P.(C )

¶28

No.426/2021 under Sec.24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking to transfer O.P No.422/2021 (Annexure A) from the Family Court, Ettumanoor to the Family Court, Mavelikkara. The respondent – husband - and his parents have filed Tr.P. (C) No.767/2021 seeking to transfer O.P. No. 747/2021(Annexure B) from the Family Court, Mavelikkara to the Family Court, Ettumanoor.

¶29

¶30

Tr.P (C) Nos.426 & 767 of 2021

¶31

The petitioner’s case, in brief, in Tr.P(C) No.426 of 2021 is that, she is the wife of the respondent.

¶32

Due to the marital estrangement, she has filed Annexure B, seeking a decree for return of gold and patrimony against the respondent and his parents. The respondent has filed Annexure A before the Family Court, Ettumanoor, seeking a decree of divorce. The petitioner finds it extremely difficult to travel from Mavelikkara to Ettumanoor on all posting dates. There is no person to chaperone the petitioner. If the proceedings are consolidated and jointly tried, it would be convenient for both parties. The law contemplates that the convenience of the wife is to be looked into, while ordering the transfer of a case. Hence, the transfer petition.

¶33

The respondent and his parents have filed Tr.P. (C) No.767/2021, inter alia, contending that they are the permanent residents of Kottayam. The parents of the respondent are old and infirm. They would find it

¶34

¶35

Tr.P (C) Nos.426 & 767 of 2021

¶36

difficult to travel from Eramalloor to Mavelikkara. On an appreciation of the comparative hardship of the parties, Annexure B may be transferred to the Family Court, Ettumanoor. Hence the transfer petition.

¶37

Heard; Smt. S.Indu, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner- wife and Sri.Gokul Das, the learned counsel appearing for the

¶38

respondent/petitioners in Tr.P.(C ) No.767/2021.

¶39

It is on record that the petitioner as well as the respondent have filed Annexures A and B as against each other. The petitioner is aged 33 years and she is residing in Cherianadu Village in Chegannur Taluk. The respondent on the other hand is residing at Eramalloor in Puthupally Village. The comparative hardship of the wife, husband and his parents have been projected as a ground to transfer of the cases.

¶40

Undisputedly, the principal dispute is between the husband and the wife. The husband’s parents are only formal parties. Their personal appearance is not

¶41

¶42

Tr.P (C) Nos.426 & 767 of 2021

¶43

necessary before the court. Therefore, necessarily, their personal appearance can be dispensed with.

¶44

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.

¶45

In the light of the rival contentions, the pleadings and materials on record, particularly the fact that the petitioner – wife is residing in a place which is more distant than that of the respondent- husband, and

¶46

¶47

Tr.P (C) Nos.426 & 767 of 2021

¶48

also the law laid down by the Honourable 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 in favour of the petitioner -wife.

¶49

In the result, I dismiss the Tr.P.(C ) No.767/2021 and allow the Tr.P.(C ) No.426/2021 by ordering the transfer of O.P No.422/2021 from the Family Court, Ettumannoor to the Family Court, Mavelikkara. On a consideration of the fact that the mother and father of the respondent are aged 66 and 71 years, I order their permanent exemption. The Family Court shall insist for their personal presence, only if necessary. The parties would be at liberty to move the Family Court for consolidation and joint trial of all the cases between them. The Registry shall forward a copy of this judgment to the Family Court, Ettumanoor with instructions to forthwith transmit the records in Annexure A to the Family Court, Mavelikkara. The Family Court,

¶50

¶51

Tr.P (C) Nos.426 & 767 of 2021

¶52

Mavelikkara shall, immediately on the receipt of the records in Annexure A, post the case along with

Annexure B.

SD/-

C.S.DIAS, JUDGE

rmm/06/06/2022

Tr.P (C) Nos.426 & 767 of 2021

¶59

APPENDIX OF TR.P(C) 426/2021

¶60

PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure ATRUE COPY OF O.P.(DIV) NO.422/2021 FILED
BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE HON'BLE
FAMILY COURT, ETTUMANOOR.
Annexure BTRUE COPY OF O.P.NO.747/2021 FILED BY
PETITIONER BEFORE THE HON'BLE FAMILY
COURT, MAVELIKARA.

¶61

¶62

Tr.P (C) Nos.426 & 767 of 2021

¶63

APPENDIX OF TR.P(C) 767/2021

¶64

PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure 1TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL PETITION IN OP
NO.747/2021 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT,
MAVELIKARA.
Annexure IITRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL PETITION FILED
AS OP (DIV) NO.422/2021 PENDING BEFORE
THE FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM AT
ETTUMANOOR.

Surya v. K.R.Srinath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surya v. K.R.Srinath

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

Vanaja Vs Muralidharan

Smitha .K Vs Harish ,M

Keerthi G.Panicker Vs Shiva P.

Misty Valley Resorts Private Ltd. Vs Jose

Vijayan.K.K Vs Canara Bank

Raju Bhaskaran Vs Raj Mohan