Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALAAT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH WEDNESDAY, THE28H DAY OF MAY20147TH JYAISHTA, 1936 Tr.P(C).No. 238 of 2013 () --------------------------- TO TRANSFER OS NO. 386/2013 FROM THE MUNSIFF'S COURT NEDUMANGAD TO THE FAMILY COURT,TRIVANDRUM PETITIONER(S)/DEFENDANT: ---------------------------------------------- INDU, AGED35YEARS, W/O.ANIL KUMAR, T.C.43/436, V.V.L.R.S., 1ST FLOOR VALIYAVEEDU LANE, KAMALESWARAM, MANACAUD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS.SRI.R.SUNIL KUMAR SMT.A.SALINI LAL RESPONDENT(S)/PLAINTIFF: ------------------------------------------- SARASAMMA, AGED70YEARS W/O.BALAKRISHNA PILLAI, MADATHU VEEDU, VALIARA, VELLANADU P.O., NEDUMANGADU. BY ADV. SRI.SANU.S.PANICKER THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON2805-2014, ALONG WITH TR.PC. 239/2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: TR.P(C) NO. 238/2013 APPENDIX ANNEXURE1: COPY OF THE INTERIM APPLICATION IN OP NO. 695/2013 ANNEXURE2: COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO. 386/2013 BEFORE MUNSIFF'S COURT, NEDUMANGAD ANNEXURE3: COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED NO. 3562/2012. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. V. CHITAMBARESH, J -------------------------------- Tr.P(C) NOS. 238 & 239 OF2013------------------------------------ Dated this the 28th day of May, 2014 ORDER
OP(HMA) No. 695/2013 on the file of the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram has been filed by the wife for restitution of conjugal rights and for recovery of money. OP(HMA) No. 407/2013 on the file of the Family Court, Nedumangad has been filed by the husband for divorce. O.S. No. 386/2013 on the file of the court of the Munsiff of Nedumangad has been filed by the mother of the husband seeking injunction against her daughter- in-law. Tr.P(C) No. 239/2013 has been filed to transfer OP(HMA) No. 407/2013 from the Family Court, Nedumangad to the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. Tr.P(C) No. 238/2013 has been filed to transfer O.S. No. 386/2013 from the court of the Munsiff of Nedumangad to the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram.
2. The wife is a home maker living with her parents at Thiruvananthapuram and the husband is a native of Nedumangad employed in Indian Army. It is a virtual impossibility for the wife to travel all the way from 2 Tr.P(C) Nos. 238 & 239/2014 Thiruvananthapuram to Nedumangad for the conduct of the case especially since she has to look after the minor child aged 2= years born in the wedlock. It may only be a slight inconvenience for the husband to travel from Nedumangad to Thiruvananthapuram and the change of venue matters little for him since he is employed in Army. OP(HMA) No. 695/2013 and OP(HMA) No. 407/2013 have to be tried by one and the same court since the issues are intertwined. I therefore order transfer of OP(HMA) No. 407/2013 from the Family Court, Nedumangad to the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram and Tr.P(C) No. 239/2013 is hence allowed.
3. The jurisdiction of the civil court under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure and that of the family court under Section 7 of the Family Court Act, 1984 vastly differs in scope and content. The jurisdiction exercised by the civil court and the family court are well defined and specific and it will be inequitable to order the transfer of a civil suit to the family court as sought. Whether the civil suit is barred and only a proceeding before the family court could be maintainable is altogether a 3 Tr.P(C) Nos. 238 & 239/2014 different issue which has to be urged by the parties in the court below. The court below can decide on the maintainability of the suit as when urged by the parties under Order XIV Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The jurisdiction vested in this court under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be invoked to transfer O.S. No. 386/2013 from the court of the Munsiff of Nedumangad to the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram as sought. Tr.P(C) No. 238/2013 is hence dismissed. V. CHITAMBARESH JUDGE ncd