Dismissed

Vidya P Pillai v. Jerin Raj

Kerala HC13 Mar 2024Tr.P(C)/22/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Wife sought transfer of two original petitions pending before Family Court, Irinjalakuda to Pathanamthitta citing her convenience and pendency of her own petitions there. The court noted earlier transfer petitions had been dismissed and that the wife works in Oman visiting Kerala briefly twice a year, found her convenience claim unrealistic, and dismissed the transfer petitions.

What the court decided

AI extract

Vidya P Pillai Vs Jerin Raj — Matrimonial and Divorce | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 13^TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 23RD PHALGUNA, 1945

¶5

TR.P(C) NO. 22 OF 2024

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN OP NO.956 OF 2021 OF FAMILY COURT, IRINJALAKUDA

¶7

PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS:

¶8

1 VIDYA P PILLAI AGED 33 YEARS D/O. PRASANNAKUMARAN PILLAI, RESIDING AT ROHINI NIVAS, AYATHIL, ELAVANTHITTA MEZHUVELI PO, PATHANAMTHITTA, KERALA, PIN - 689507

¶9

2 PRASANNAKUMARAN PILLAI AGED 64 YEARS APPUPUNNEL VEETTIL, EDANADU PO, CHENGANNOOR, ALAPUZHA, RESIDING AT ROHINI NIVAS, AYATHIL, ELAVANTHITTA MEZHUVELI PO, PATHANAMTHITTA, KERALA, PIN - 689507 BY ADVS. NOBEL RAJU C.R.JAYAKUMAR ALEENA JOSE

¶10

RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:

¶11

JERIN RAJ AGED 36 YEARS S/O. JAYARAJAN, KALACHATTIL, KONATHUKUNNU PO, PAINGODU, THEKKUMKARA, MUKUNDAPURAM, THRISSUR 680123 REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER JAYARAJAN, AGED 64YRS, S/O. SHANKARAN NAIR KALACHATTIL, KONATHUKUNNU PO, PAINGODU, THEKKUMKARA, MUKUNDAPURAM, THRISSUR, PIN - 680123

¶12

BY ADVS. Vinod Bhat S ANAGHA LAKSHMY RAMAN(K/000767/2015) V.NAMITHA(K/1090/2011) GREESHMA CHANDRIKA.R(K/807/2020)

¶13

THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION

¶14

ON 13.03.2024, ALONG WITH Tr.P(C).23/2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME

¶15

DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Tr.P.(C).NOs.22 & 23 of 2024

¶17

..2..

¶18

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶19

PRESENT

¶20

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 13^TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 23RD PHALGUNA, 1945

¶21

TR.P(C) NO. 23 OF 2024

¶22

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN OP NO.1254 OF 2021 OF FAMILY COURT, IRINJALAKUDA

¶23

PETITIONER/1ST RESPONDENT:

¶24

VIDYA P PILLAI AGED 33 YEARS D/O. PRASANNAKUMARAN PILLAI, RESIDING AT ROHINI NIVAS, AYATHIL, ELAVANTHITTA MEZHUVELI PO, PATHANAMTHITTA, KERALA, PIN - 689507

¶25

BY ADVS. NOBEL RAJU C.R.JAYAKUMAR ALEENA JOSE

¶26

RESPONDENT/PETITIONER/2ND RESPONDENT:

¶27

1 JERIN RAJ AGED 34 YEARS S/O. JAYARAJAN, KALACHATTIL, KONATHUKUNNU PO, PAINGODU, THEKKUMKARA, MUKUNDAPURAM, TRISSUR 680123 REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER JAYARAJAN, AGED 64YRS, S/O. SHANKARAN NAIR KALACHATTIL, KONATHUKUNNU PO, PAINGODU, THEKKUMKARA, MUKUNDAPURAM, TRISSUR, PIN - 680123 2 VEENA P PILLAI D/O. PRASANNAKUMARAN PILLAI, RESIDING AT ROHINI NIVAS, AYATHIL, ELAVANTHITTA MEZHUVELI PO, PATHANAMTHITTA, KERALA, PIN - 689507 BY ADVS. Vinod Bhat S ANAGHA LAKSHMY RAMAN(K/000767/2015) V.NAMITHA(K/1090/2011) GREESHMA CHANDRIKA.R(K/807/2020)

¶28

THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.03.2024, ALONG WITH Tr.P(C).22/2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶29

Tr.P.(C).NOs.22 & 23 of 2024

¶30

..3..

¶31

COMMON ORDER

¶32

Dated this the 13^th day of March, 2024

¶33

These are applications preferred by the wife seeking transfer of O.P.No.1254/2021 and O.P.No.956/2021, both, pending before the Family Court, Irinjalakuda to the Family Court, Pathanamthitta, essentially on the ground of convenience of the petitioner/wife. The petitioner would specifically rely on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sumita Singh v. Kumar Sanjay & another [AIR (2002) SC 396], to propound that wife's convenience must be looked into, while considering a transfer motion made by the petitioner/wife in matrimonial matters.

¶34

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners

¶35

and the respondents.

¶36

Tr.P.(C).NOs.22 & 23 of 2024

¶37

..4..

¶38

3. This Court notice that, two transfer petitions preferred seeking transfer of the self-same original petitions, vide Tr.P.(C)Nos.229/2022 & 236/2022, were dismissed by this Court vide Annexure-A2 common order. The reason for dismissal was that, the said transfer petitions were preferred by the petitioner, represented through her Power of Attorney holder/mother and this Court held that, the convenience of the mother/Power of Attorney holder cannot be taken stock of, to transfer cases, which are filed before the courts having natural jurisdiction. Thereafter, the present transfer petitions have been filed by the wife directly, seeking transfer of the said two

¶39

original petitions to the Family court, Pathananthitta. In the meanwhile, two original petitions were filed by the petitioner/wife before the Family Court, Pathanamthitta after dismissal of the earlier transfer petitions, vide Annexure-A2. The first petition O.P.(HMA)No.30/2023 is one

¶40

..5..

¶41

Tr.P.(C).NOs.22 & 23 of 2024

¶42

seeking divorce and the second, O.P.No.29/2023 is one seeking patrimony. Now, the contention of the petitioner is that, the said two cases are pending before the Family Court, Pathanamthitta, which is

¶43

an additional reason for allowing the transfer sought for.

¶44

4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for

¶45

the respective parties, this Court finds that the transfers sought for cannot be allowed. There is no change of circumstances from Annexure-A2 common order, except that the present petitions are preferred by the wife directly. It remains an undisputed fact that, the petitioner/wife is still working as a teacher in Salalah, Oman, and that she is available in Kerala twice in an year, to be more precisely 15 days during June-July and another 15 days during December. If that be the position, the convenience of the petitioner/wife in seeking transfer from Irinjalakuda to Pathanamthitta is

¶46

Tr.P.(C).NOs.22 & 23 of 2024

¶47

..6..

¶48

highly far-fetched, unrealistic and not liable to be recognized. Learned counsel would submit that the respondent is also working in U.A.E., which, however, is not a fact having any relevance in the context of the transfers sought for. If the convenience of the petitioner/wife is discounted as narrated above, there exists no ground for allowing the transfers sought for. This Court is of the opinion that, Original Petitions filed before courts having natural jurisdiction cannot be lightly interfered with and directed to be transferred, except for genuine and valid grounds, which is lacking in the instant facts.

¶49

Accordingly, the Transfer Petitions will stand dismissed.

¶50

Sd/- C. JAYACHANDRAN JUDGE

¶51

¶52

Tr.P.(C).NOs.22 & 23 of 2024

¶53

..7..

¶54

APPENDIX OF TR.P(C) 23/2024

¶55

PETITIONER ANNE	XURES
Annexure A1	A TRUE COPY	OF THE	PETITION IN O.P. NO.
	1254/2021 FI PENDING BE	LED BY FORE	THE 1ST RESPONDENT, THE FAMILY COURT,
	IRINJALAKUDA	DATED	05.11.2021
Annexure A2	A TRUE COPY	OF THE	COMMON ORDER IN TRPC
	236/2022 BY	THIS H	ONOURABLE COURT DATED
	27.09.2022

¶56

Tr.P.(C).NOs.22 & 23 of 2024

¶57

..8..

¶58

APPENDIX OF TR.P(C) 22/2024

¶59

PETITIONER ANNE	XURES
Annexure A1	A TRUE CO	PY OF THE	PETITION IN O.P. NO.
	956/2021 PENDING	FILED BEFORE	BY THE RESPONDENT, THE FAMILY COURT,
	IRINJALAK	UDA DATED	14.09.2021
Annexure A2	A TRUE CO	PY OF THE	COMMON ORDER IN TRPC
	229/2022 HONOURABL	DATED E COURT	27.09.2022 BY THIS

Vidya P Pillai v. Jerin Raj

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Vidya P Pillai v. Jerin Raj

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dalbi Emmanuel Vs Bastin Cherian

Suresh Vs Peringottukara Namboodiri Yogakshema Sabha

Narendranathan Vs Divakaran

Vidya P Pillai Vs Jerin Raj

The Kerala State Electricity Board Vs Jeemon K.Abraham

Swapna Vs Mulamkunnathukavu Devaswom