Allowed

Rincy Ann Lalu v. Benoy Kuruvilla

Kerala HC5 Sept 2023Tr.P(C)/220/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a transfer petition, the single judge of the Kerala High Court transferred a divorce petition from the Family Court Thiruvalla to the Family Court Thiruvananthapuram. The transfer was based on the principle of convenience, noting that the petitioner, who has a six-year-old child, would face significant hardship traveling to Thiruvalla, whereas the respondent's residence in Bangalore made venue

What did the court decide?

Original Petition transferred from Family Court Thiruvalla to Family Court Thiruvananthapuram.

Rincy Ann Lalu Vs Benoy Kuruvilla — 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

TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 14TH BHADRA, 1945

¶5

TR.P(C) NO. 220 OF 2023

¶6

(TO TRANSFER OP (IDA) 722/2021 ON THE FILE OF FAMILY COURT,
THIRUVALLA TO FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM)

¶7

PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

¶8

RINCY ANN LALU, AGED 32 YEARS,
D/O. LALU M. ABRAHAM & ELIZABETH JOHN,
'SRAKATHU', 467/A, B.P. NAGAR, PEYAD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695573.

¶9

BY ADVS.D.KISHORE
MEERA GOPINATH
R.MURALEEKRISHNAN (MALAKKARA)

¶10

RESPONDENT/COUNTER PETITIONER:

¶11

BENOY KURUVILLA, AGED 36 YEARS,
S/O. P.I. KURUVILLA & VALSAMMA KURUVILLA,
ORIGINALLY RESIDING AT THOTTAKKATTU PATTAPARAMBIL
HOUSE, NADUVILEMURI, THALAVADY P.O, ALAPPUZHA-689572,
CURRENTLY RESIDING AT NO. 102, ANJAN IRISH VENKITAPPA
COLONY, B NARAYANPURA, DOORVANI NAGAR P.O., BANGALORE,
KARNATAKA – 560016.

¶12

BY ADVS.BASIL CHANDY VAVACHAN
GEORGIE SIMON(K/001374/2001)
CHARUTHA BHAIJU(K/000413/2018)
CHANDHANA BHAIJU(K/001122/2022)
BASIL SAJAN(K/2266/2022)
FATHIM NAVAS(K/785/2023)

¶13

THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 05.09.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

TR.P(C) NO. 220 OF 2023

¶15

-2-

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The petitioner filed OP(IDA)No.722/2021

¶18

before the Family Court, Thiruvalla, seeking
divorce from the respondent – her husband, on
various grounds. She says that she filed the
Original Petition before the afore said Court
because that was the place where her matrimonial
home is situated, where she was staying prior to
the disputes between her and husband arose. She
says that, however, after the husband deserted
her, she had no other option but to shift
permanentlytoherparentalhomeat

¶19

Thiruvananthapuram; but concedes that she is
presently working at Bangalore, where the
respondent is also employed. She adds that she

¶20

has a six year old child and therefore, that
attending of Court at Thiruvalla causes great
inconvenience to her, because she does not have

¶21

a place to stay there and is being forced to

¶22

TR.P(C) NO. 220 OF 2023

¶23

-3-

¶24

travel back to Thiruvananthapuram every time
after hearing. She thus pleads that the
aforementioned Original Petition be transferred

¶25

to the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram,
particularly because it would cause no prejudice
to the respondent who is also presently residing
at Bangalore.

¶26

2.The afore submissions of Sri.D.Kishore –
learned counsel for the petitioner, were
vehemently opposed by Sri.Basil Chandy Vavachan
- learned counsel for the respondent, relying
upon the counter affidavit and asserting that
when the petitioner had chosen to invoke the
jurisdiction of the Family Court, Thiruvalla, by

¶27

filing the Original Petition, she cannot now
seekthatitbetransferredto

¶28

Thiruvananthapuram. He, however, conceded that

¶29

the petitioner’sparentalhome is in

¶30

Thiruvananthapuram, but argued that this would

¶31

TR.P(C) NO. 220 OF 2023

¶32

-4-

¶33

be of no consequence because she can always
travel to Thiruvalla for the case and then
return without any impediment. He thus prayed
that this Transfer Petition be dismissed.

¶34

3.I am afraid that I cannot find favour
with the afore submissions of the respondent
because, what this Court is required to consider
is the relative convenience of the parties,
juxtaposed by the prejudice that may be caused
to them, particularly to their young child.

¶35

4.It is without doubt, as is conceded,
that petitioner and the respondent were
originally residing at Thiruvalla - which is
their matrimonial home, from where the disputes
started; and that she shifted to her parental
home at Thiruvananthapuram, to thereafter join
her employment in Bangalore.

¶36

5.As far as the respondent is concerned,
he is presently working in Bangalore, which fact

¶37

TR.P(C) NO. 220 OF 2023

¶38

-5-

¶39

is conceded; and hence, it would be of no real
consequence to him whether the proceedings

¶40

continue at Thiruvananthapuram or Thiruvalla.

¶41

6.However, as regards the petitioner, she

¶42

is in charge of a young child, who is only six
years old; and obviously, therefore, when she is
to attend the court hearings, she will have to
either travel back to Thiruvananthapuram, to
place her child in the charge of her parents,
who are at the said place.

¶43

7.Indubitably, therefore, this is a case

¶44

where the prejudice to the petitioner, if the
Original Petition is continued at Thiruvalla, is
far greater than if it is transferred to

¶45

Thiruvananthapuram. However, as far as the

¶46

respondent is concerned, it would make no real
difference because, as I have already said
above, he is presently staying in Bangalore and

¶47

will have to either travel to Thiruvalla or

¶48

TR.P(C) NO. 220 OF 2023

¶49

Thiruvananthapuram - as the case may be, to
contest the case.

¶50

In the afore circumstances, adverting to the
obvious convenience that would be available to
the petitioner, especially taking care of the
young child, who is admittedly in her charge, I
allow this Transfer Petition and order that O.P.
(IDA)No.722/2021 will stand transferred from the
Family Court, Thiruvalla to the Family Court,
Thiruvananthapuram.

¶51

Consequently, the Original Petition, on

¶52

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

¶53

Sd/-

¶54

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶55

JUDGE

¶56

akv

¶57

TR.P(C) NO. 220 OF 2023

¶58

-7-

¶59

APPENDIX OF TR.P(C) 220/2023

¶60

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶61

ANNEXURE-1TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF O.P.
(IDA) NO.722/2021 DATED 30.12.2021 ON
THE FILE OF FAMILY COURT, THIRUVALLA

Rincy Ann Lalu v. Benoy Kuruvilla

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rincy Ann Lalu v. Benoy Kuruvilla

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

Sreekumaran @ Sreekumaran.B. Vs Sudevan

Ananda Babu M.J Vs Shri. Biju Prabhakar

The Kottappady Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. No. E155, Vs Sarasu N.P

Dr.Meera, W/o.Harimohan Vs Dr.Harimohan K.G. S/O.K.P.Gopinathan

Sajana P M K. Vs Daimler Financier Services India Private Limited

Sathyabhama Vs Advocate Madhusoodanan Nair