Allowed

Sheeba S.R. v. Vinod D.

Kerala HC6 Jul 2022Tr.P(C)/65/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a transfer petition filed by a cancer patient wife seeking to transfer matrimonial proceedings from Family Court, Kollam to Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The court allowed the transfer to consolidate proceedings and avoid conflict of decisions in light of established Supreme Court Guidelines. Relief: Allowed transfer.

What did the court decide?

O.P(H.M.A) No.812/2021 transferred from Family Court, Kollam to Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram for consolidation.

Sheeba S.R. Vs Vinod D. — Writ and Judicial Review | 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. 65 OF 2022

¶5

IN OPHMA 812/2021 OF FAMILY COURT,KOLLAM

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SHEEBA S.R.
AGED 39 YEARS
D/O.C.SOMAN, T.C.32/1196, SIVAPRASAD HOUSE, BEACH P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 007.

¶8

BY ADV M.R.SARIN

¶9

RESPONDENT:

¶10

VINOD D.
AGED 44 YEARS
S/O.DAYANANDAN, KRISHNAN BHAVAN, KARIMBALLOOR,
PUTHENKULAM P.O., PARAVOOR, KOLLAM - 691 302.

¶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. 65 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(H.M.A) No.812/2021 (Annexure 1) from the Family Court, Kollam to the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram.

¶15

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. Due to the matrimonial cruelty meted out to her, she was constrained to leave the matrimonial home. She and her child are residing in her parental home at Thiruvananthapuram. She has instituted O.P. No.28/2022 (Annexure 5) against the respondent, before the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram, seeking a decree for recovery of money. The respondent has instituted Annexure 1, seeking a decree for restitution of conjugal rights. There is no person to chaperone the petitioner from

¶16

TR.P(C) NO. 65 OF 2022 3

¶17

Thiruvananthapuram to Kollam to contest Annexure 1. Moreover, the petitioner has undergone a surgery and is unable to travel all the way to Kollam. Hence the transfer petition.

¶18

Heard; M.R. Sarin Panicker, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Even though notice has been served on the respondent, there is no appearance for him.

¶19

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

¶20

TR.P(C) NO. 65 OF 2022 4

¶21

another.

¶22

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

¶23

cited decisions, the uncontroverted pleadings and materials on record, the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, especially the fact that Annexure 5 is already pending before the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram, and that the petitioner is a cancer patient as evident from Annexure 2, 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 Annexure 1 from the Family Court, Kollam to the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram, so that the cases can be consolidated and jointly tried, which would save precious judicial time and avoid conflict of decisions.

¶24

In the result, I allow the transfer petition as follows:(i) O.P(H.M.A) No.812/2021 is transferred from the

¶25

Family Court, Kollam to the Family Court,

¶26

Thiruvananthapuram.

¶27

TR.P(C) NO. 65 OF 2022 5

¶28

(ii) The parties would be at liberty to move the Family

¶29

Court, Thiruvananthapuram and seek for consolidation and joint trial of all the cases between them.

¶30

(iii) The Registry shall forward a copy of this order to the Family Court, Kollam with instructions to forthwith transmit the records in Annexure 1 to the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram.

¶31

(iv) The Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram shall, immediately on the receipt of the records in Annexure 1, call the case along with Annexure 5.

Sd/-

C.S.DIAS, JUDGE

rmm/06/07/2022

TR.P(C) NO. 65 OF 2022 6

¶36

APPENDIX OF TR.P(C) 65/2022

¶37

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶38

Annexure 1THE TRUE COPY OF OP(HMA) NO.812/2021
PENDING BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, KOLLAM.

¶39

Annexure 2THE TRUE COPY OF THE TREATMENT CERTIFICATE
DATED 28/08/2021 ISSUED BY REGIONAL CANCER
CENTRE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶40

Annexure 3THE TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE ISSUED FROM
SURGICAL ONCOLOGY DIVISION DATED
03/11/2021.

¶41

Annexure 4THE TRUE COPY OF OUT PATIENT CERTIFICATE
ISSUED BY GOWREESHA HOSPITAL DATED
03/01/2022.

¶42

Annexure 5THE TRUE COPY OF THE OP NO.28/2022 BEFORE
THE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

Sheeba S.R. v. Vinod D.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sheeba S.R. v. Vinod D.

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.

Nadiya Krishnan, Vs Rejin Ravi