Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Nithya vs Sreejith

Nithya vs Sreejith

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Mar 26, 2025
~4 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1277207

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kerala High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Tr.P(C)/47/2025
Subject
Land Acquisition

Case Summary

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

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Nithya

Respondent

Sreejith

Excerpt

.....categoric declaration of law by the hon'ble supreme court in sumitha singh v. -5-kumar sanjay and another [(2001)10 scc 41)], mona aresh goel v. aresh satya goel [(2000) 9 scc 255], vaishali shridhar jagtap v. shridhar vishwanath jagtap [air 2016 sc 3584] and santhini v. vijaya venkatesh [2017 (4) klt 415 (sc)]; wherein it is held that it is the convenience of the woman and children that have to be looked into while ordering the transfer of a case from one court to another. the law is quite categoric, and the wife's convenience has to be looked into while deciding a petition for transfer, and in such cases, transfer has been effected.5. thus, in the light of the uncontrovertedaverments in the memorandum of transfer petition, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the law laid down by the hon'ble supreme court in the afore- cited decisions, i am inclined to allow this transfer petition. in the result, o.p no.963/2024 pending before the family court, tirur, is withdrawn and transferred to the -6- family court, thrissur. the family court, tirur, shall immediately transfer the records to the family court, thrissur. on receipt of the records, the family court, thrissur, shall issue notice to the parties and dispose of the case in accordance with law. sd/- basant balaji judge js -7- appendix of tr.p(c) 47/2025 petitioner annexures annexure1 copy of the petition in o.p.no.963/2024 on the file of family court, tirur dated 07.08.2024

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 5TH CHAITHRA, 1947 TR.P(C) NO. 47 OF 2025 OP NO.963 OF 2024 OF FAMILY COURT, TIRUR PETITIONERS:

1 NITHYA AGED 33 YEARS D/O THERUPARAMBIL GOPALAKRISHNAN PUTHURUTHI, PUTHURUTHI P.O THALAPILLI TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT., PIN - 680623 2 LAKSHA AGED 10 YEARS MINOR, REP.BY NEXT FRIEND, MOTHER NITHYA D/O THERUPARAMBIL GOPALAKRISHNAN PUTHURUTHI, PUTHURUTHI P.O THALAPILLI TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680623 3 ARUSH AGED 4 YEARS MINOR, REP.BY NEXT FRIEND, MOTHER NITHYA D/O THERUPARAMBIL GOPALAKRISHNAN PUTHURUTHI, PUTHURUTHI P.O THALAPILLI TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680623 BY ADVS. P.S.BINU K.SEENA

RESPONDENTS: 1 SREEJITH AGED 38 YEARS S/O KEEZHPADAVALAPPIL VELAYUDHAN, KANHAYUR, MOOKKUTHALA.P.O NANNAMMUKK VILLAGE, PONNANI TALUK MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,, PIN - 679574 -2- 2 SOBHANAMBIKA AGED 61 YEARS W/O KEEZHPADAVALAPPIL VELAYUDHAN, KANHAYUR, MOOKKUTHALA.P.O NANNAMMUKK VILLAGE, PONNANI TALUK MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,, PIN - 679574 3 VELAYUDHAN AGED 71 YEARS S/O KEEZHPADAVALAPPIL AYYAPPAN, KANHAYUR, MOOKKUTHALA.P.O NANNAMMUKK VILLAGE, PONNANI TALUK MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679574 THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: -3-

O R D E R

(Dated this the 26th day of March, 2025) This Transfer Petition has been filed seeking a transfer of O.P No.963/2024 pending before the Family Court, Tirur, to the Family Court, Thrissur.

2. The 1st petitioner is the wife of the 1st

respondent. The petitioners 2 and 3 are the children born to them. The marriage between the 1 st petitioner and the 1st respondent was solemnized on 19.01.2014 and subsequently, their relationship got strained, and the petitioners filed O.P No.963/2024 before the Family Court, Tirur, for return of gold and other articles belonging to the petitioners from the respondents.

2. At present, the petitioners are residing in the

parental house of the 1st petitioner, in Thrissur. So it is not convenient to contest the matter before the Family Court, Tirur, since the court is situated more than 70 kms away -4- from the present residence of the petitioners, on the other hand, the Family Court, Thrissur, is only 15 kms away from

the residence of the petitioners. There is nobody to accompany the petitioners all the way to Tirur from Thrissur. So, if the case is transferred to Family Court, Thrissur, it will be very convenient for the petitioners to defend the case in a proper manner, and no prejudice will be caused to the respondents if such a transfer is effected.

3. Notice issued from this Court has been

served on the respondents, and none appears. Thus it can be seen that the averments in the Transfer Petition stands unchallenged, which entitles the petitioners an order from this Court.

4. Moreover, the law in respect of transfer of

proceedings, particularly in matrimonial disputes, is no longer res-integra, in view of the categoric declaration of law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sumitha Singh v. -5-

Kumar Sanjay and another [(2001)10 SCC 41)], Mona Aresh Goel v. Aresh Satya Goel [(2000) 9 SCC 255], Vaishali Shridhar Jagtap v. Shridhar Vishwanath Jagtap [AIR 2016 SC 3584] and Santhini v. Vijaya Venkatesh [2017 (4) KLT 415 (SC)]; wherein it is held that it is the convenience of the woman and children that have to be looked into while ordering the transfer of a case from one court to another. The law is quite categoric, and the wife's convenience has to be looked into while deciding a petition for transfer, and in such cases, transfer has been effected.

5. Thus, in the light of the uncontroverted

averments in the memorandum of transfer petition, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the afore- cited decisions, I am inclined to allow this transfer petition. In the result, O.P No.963/2024 pending before the Family Court, Tirur, is withdrawn and transferred to the -6- Family Court, Thrissur. The Family Court, Tirur, shall immediately transfer the records to the Family Court, Thrissur. On receipt of the records, the Family Court, Thrissur, shall issue notice to the parties and dispose of the case in accordance with law. Sd/- BASANT BALAJI JUDGE JS -7- APPENDIX OF TR.P(C) 47/2025 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure1 COPY OF THE PETITION IN O.P.NO.963/2024 ON THE FILE OF FAMILY COURT, TIRUR DATED 07.08.2024

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial