Anila E.P. Vs. K.P.Sajith

Anila E.P. vs K.P.Sajith

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Jan 23, 2013

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1015087

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1015087
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice Thomas P.Joseph
Decided On: Jan 23, 2013
Subject: Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Anila E.P.

Respondent

K.P.Sajith

Excerpt

.....to thalassery to contest the case. the respondent is residing at vilakottoor, in thalassery taluk. no doubt he may also have some inconvenience if the request for transfer is allowed.5. the supreme court in sumitha singh v. kumar sanjay and another (air 200.sc396) and arti rani v. dharmendra kumar gupta ([2008] 9 scc353) has held that while considering request for transfer of matrimonial proceedings, convenience of the wife has to be looked into. that of course does not mean that inconvenience of the husband has to be ignored. tr.p(c) no.513 of 2012 -:2. :- 6. having regard to the various factors i am of the view that hardship is comparatively more on petitioner in case request for transfer is not allowed. inconvenience that may be caused to the respondent can be reduced by permitting him to appear in the transferee court through counsel except when his physical presence is required. hence i am inclined to allow the petition. resultantly, the petition is allowed in the following lines: (a) o.p. no.258 of 2012 pending in the family court, thalassery is withdrawn from that court and made over to the family court, vadakara for trial and disposal. (b) the transferor court while transmitting records of the cases to the transferee court shall fix the date for appearance of parties in the transferee court with due intimation to the counsel on both sides. (c) it is made clear that except when tr.p(c) no.513 of 2012 -:3. :- physical presence of the respondent in the transferee court is necessary, he can appear through counsel. all pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed. thomas p. joseph, judge. vsv

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY 2013 3RD MAGHA 193 TR.P(C).NO. 513 OF 201.() ------------------------------------ O.P NO.258 OF 2012.FAMILY COURT, THALASSERY PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------- ANILA E.P. AGED 2 YEARS D/O.ASOKAN,RESIDING AT ELAMPARAMBATH,THINNOOR P.O. KAKKATTIL,KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADVS.SRI.GEO PAUL SRI.SANU MATHEW SRI.C.R.PRAMOD SRI.S.ASHOK KUMAR. SRI.NOEL JOSEPH SRI.K.V.REJANISH SMT.P.M.HRIDYA RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER: -------------------------------------------- K.P.SAJITH, AGED 3 YEARS S/O.NANU,RESIDING AT KUNHIPARAMBATH VILLAKOTTOOR P.O.,THOOVAKKUNNU,THALASSERY TALUK KANNUR DISTRICT,PIN 670693. R1 BY ADV. SRI.U.P.BALAKRISHNAN R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.R.AVINASH (KUNNATH) THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23-01-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: TR.P(C) NO.513 OF 201.APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF O.P. NO.258 OF 201.PENDING ON THE FILE OF FAMILY COURT, THALASSERY. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL TRUE COPY THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.

==================================== Tr.P(C) No.513 of 2012 ==================================== Dated this the 23rd day of January, 2013 ORDER

Respondent appears through counsel.

2. This petition is to transfer O.P. No.258 of 2012 from the Family Court, Thalssery to the Family Court, Vadakara, Kozhikode. That is a petition filed by the respondent under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

3. The petition is opposed by the respondent.

4. Petitioner is residing at Kakkattil, in Kozhikode. She has to travel all the distance from Kakkattil to Thalassery to contest the case. The respondent is residing at Vilakottoor, in Thalassery Taluk. No doubt he may also have some inconvenience if the request for transfer is allowed.

5. The Supreme Court in Sumitha Singh v. Kumar Sanjay and another (AIR 200.SC

396) and Arti Rani v. Dharmendra Kumar Gupta ([2008] 9 SCC

353) has held that while considering request for transfer of matrimonial proceedings, convenience of the wife has to be looked into. That of course does not mean that inconvenience of the husband has to be ignored. Tr.P(C) No.513 of 2012 -:

2. :- 6. Having regard to the various factors I am of the view that hardship is comparatively more on petitioner in case request for transfer is not allowed. Inconvenience that may be caused to the respondent can be reduced by permitting him to appear in the transferee court through counsel except when his physical presence is required. Hence I am inclined to allow the petition. Resultantly, the Petition is allowed in the following lines: (a) O.P. No.258 of 2012 pending in the Family Court, Thalassery is withdrawn from that court and made over to the Family Court, Vadakara for trial and disposal. (b) The transferor court while transmitting records of the cases to the transferee court shall fix the date for appearance of parties in the transferee court with due intimation to the counsel on both sides. (c) It is made clear that except when Tr.P(C) No.513 of 2012 -:

3. :- physical presence of the respondent in the transferee court is necessary, he can appear through counsel. All pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2013 Same Parties Anila E.P. vs K.P.Sajith Same Subject Education Same Judge Honourable Mr.Justice Thomas P.Joseph