Allowed

Anjaleena John v. Diffin Dikson

Kerala HC18 Sept 2023Tr.P(C)/113/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a transfer petition, the High Court ordered the transfer of an original divorce petition from the Family Court at Irinjalakkuda to the Family Court at Kasaragod. The Court found the petitioner's hardship, involving a breastfeeding infant and long travel distances, more severe than the respondent's anticipated difficulties.

What did the court decide?

Original Petition No.62/2023 to be transferred from Family Court, Irinjalakkuda to Family Court, Kasaragod.

Anjaleena John Vs Diffin Dikson — Matrimonial and Divorce | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 27TH BHADRA, 1945

¶5

TR.P(C) NO. 113 OF 2023

¶6

TO TRANSFER OP NO.62/2023 ON THE FILES OF FAMILY COURT, IRINJALAKUDA
TO THE FAMILY COURT, KASARAGOD

¶7

PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:

¶8

ANJALEENA JOHN
AGED 28 YEARS
D/O. JOHN, EDAMULAYIL (H), EANICHAL, PLAVAYAL P.O, DIST.
KASARGOD., PIN - 670511
BY ADVS.
RAHUL SASI
NEETHU PREM
MANU K. MURALI

¶9

RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:

¶10

DIFFIN DIKSON
AGED 29 YEARS
S/O DIKSON, CHIRAYATH (H) ANNAS CANAL ROAD, ULLOOR P.O
TRISSUR, PIN - 680306

¶11

SRI. VINAY MATHEW JOSEPH

¶12

THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
18.09.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

TR.P(C) NO. 113 OF 2023

¶14

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

The petitioner seeks that OP No.62/2023

¶17

filed by the respondent – husband, before the
Family Court, Irinjalakkuda, be transferred to
the Family Court, Kasaragod.

¶18

2.Smt.Ardra Menon - appearing for the
petitioner, explained that, consequent to the
matrimonial disputes between the parties, her
client had to shift her residence, along with the
parents, to Kasaragod, and that she is finding it
extremely difficult to defend the afore Original
Petition, since the distance to be travelled by
her to Irinjalakkuda is very large. She added
that the situation has been exacerbated for her
client because, she is in custody of her three
month old child, who will be left without proper
care and protection, when she has to travel to
attend the hearings at the Family Court,

¶19

TR.P(C) NO. 113 OF 2023

¶20

¶21

Irinjalakkuda, particularly because the child is
still being breast fed.

¶22

3.Sri.Vinay Mathew - learned counsel for

¶23

the respondent, submitted that the afore request

¶24

of the petitioner is untenable because the
entire cause of action for seeking divorce
emanated at Thrissur. He added that his client
is presently abroad and that the afore Original
Petition is being prosecuted by his father, who
will find it very difficult to travel to the
Family Court, Kasaragod.

¶25

submissions, it is rendered indubitable that the
detriment faced by the petitioner, to travel to
Irinjalakkuda and to defend the afore original
petition, is far more than what has been
projected by the respondent qua his father, who
is the Power of Attorney.

¶26

TR.P(C) NO. 113 OF 2023

¶27

¶28

is presently staying in Kasaragod and she is in
charge of her three month old child, who
requires to be breast fed. If she has to travel
the distance to Irinjalakkuda, obviously, the
child will also be put to great prejudice, which
is irreparable and which cannot be unseen by
this Court.

¶29

respondent, he is stated to be abroad and his
only contention that his father is 55 years in

¶30

age, who has been entrusted with his Power of
Attorney, to conduct the Original Petition. It

¶31

is needless to say that, due to the

¶32

technological advances that the judicial system
has achieved in the State, the Power of
Attorney of the respondent can participate in

¶33

the proceedings even online; and, in any event,

¶34

TR.P(C) NO. 113 OF 2023

¶35

¶36

it will be upto the respondent himself to offer

¶37

evidence; for which, he will have to travel

¶38

back to India. Hence, whether it is
Irinjalakkda or Kasaragod, it would be of
little difference to him.

¶39

In the afore circumstances, this original
petition is allowed and O.P No.62/2023 will
stand transferred from the Family Court
Irinjalakkuda to the Family Court, Kasaragode.

¶40

Consequently, the Original Petition, on
transfer, will be numbered appropriately and the
parties notified of further proceedings as per
law.

¶41

 Sd/-

¶42

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶43

JUDGE

¶44

SAS

¶45

TR.P(C) NO. 113 OF 2023

¶46

¶47

APPENDIX OF TR.P(C) 113/2023

¶48

PETITIONER’S ANNEXURES:

¶49

Annexure A1TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL PETITION O.P NO. 62
OF 2023 ON THE FILES OF THE FAMILY COURT,
IRINJALAKUDA

Anjaleena John v. Diffin Dikson

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anjaleena John v. Diffin Dikson

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.a.Nizar, Vs Inhs(Indian Naval Hospital Ship) Sanjivani

Preetha N.K Vs the Director, Akshaya Project

Gopalakrishnan a. Vs the Director, Akshaya Project

K.S.Sethumadhavan Vs the Taluk Land Board

C.R. Shaji Vs Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd.

Saudambika Ravindran Vs V.K. Shalini