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.

Anitha .P.V vs Amritha

Anitha .P.V vs Amritha

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Dec 07, 2022
~6 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1472390

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)/231/2022

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Anitha .P.V

Respondent

Amritha

Excerpt

tr.p(c) no. 231 of 2022 1in the high court of kerala at ernakulampresent the honourable mr.justice c.s.dias wednesday, the 7th day of december 2022 / 16th agrahayana, 1944 tr.p(c) no. 231 of 2022 op 176/2021 of family court, nedumangad petitioner/s:1 anitha .p.v aged 42 years w/o.ajithakumar (wrongly mentioned as w/o. pradeepan on op) poovananji, pothiyveedu, trippnangottoor, poyiloor, trippangottor village, kannur district,pin-670 693 2 anjana aged 12 years d/o.ajithakumar (wrongly mentioned as d/o. pradeepan on op) poovanaji, pothiyveedu, trippnangottoor, poyiloor, trippangoattor village, kannur district,pin-670 693 (minor represented by the 1st petitioner mother smt. anitha.p.v) by advs. premchand r.nair george briston v.p.prasanth preeja v.p.respondent/s:1 amritha d/o. ajithakumar, lekshmi bhavan, poovachal, moolayamcode, alamukku, veeranakavu village, in kattakada taluk, residing at avittom, panangode, venanoor p.o., trivandrum (dist) ,pin-695 527 2 arjun aged 21 years s/o. ajithakumar, lekshmi bhavan, poovachal, moolayamcode, alamukku, veeranakavu village, in kattakada taluk, residing at avittom, panangode, venanoor p.o., trivandrum (dist) ,pin-695 527 3 adaharsh, aged 21 years,s/o.pradeepan poovanaji, pothiyveedu, trippnangottoor, poyiloor, trippangoattor village, kannur district,pin-670 693tr.p(c) no. 231 of 2022 2 4 managing director, ksrtc chief office, fort. p.o., thiruvananthapuram,pin- by advs. ananda rajan.n - r1, r2 g.keerthivas - r4 this transfer petition (civil) having come up for admission on 07.12.2022, the court on the same day delivered the following: tr.p(c) no. 231 of 2022 3orderthe transfer petition is filed under section 24 of the code of civil procedure,1908 (in short, 'c.p.c.'), seeking to transfer o.p.no.176 of 2021 (annexure-d), from the family court, nedumangad to the family court, thalassery.2. the petitioners’ case, in brief, in thememorandum of transfer petition is that, the 1st petitioner is the widow of ajithkumar. the.....

Full Judgment

TR.P(C) NO. 231 OF 2022 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944 TR.P(C) NO. 231 OF 2022 OP 176/2021 OF FAMILY COURT, NEDUMANGAD PETITIONER/S:

1 ANITHA .P.V AGED 42 YEARS W/O.AJITHAKUMAR (WRONGLY MENTIONED AS W/O. PRADEEPAN ON OP) POOVANANJI, POTHIYVEEDU, TRIPPNANGOTTOOR, POYILOOR, TRIPPANGOTTOR VILLAGE, KANNUR DISTRICT,PIN-670 693 2 ANJANA AGED 12 YEARS D/O.AJITHAKUMAR (WRONGLY MENTIONED AS D/O. PRADEEPAN ON OP) POOVANAJI, POTHIYVEEDU, TRIPPNANGOTTOOR, POYILOOR, TRIPPANGOATTOR VILLAGE, KANNUR DISTRICT,PIN-670 693 (MINOR REPRESENTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER MOTHER SMT. ANITHA.P.V) BY ADVS. PREMCHAND R.NAIR GEORGE BRISTON V.P.PRASANTH PREEJA V.P.

RESPONDENT/S:

1 AMRITHA D/O. AJITHAKUMAR, LEKSHMI BHAVAN, POOVACHAL, MOOLAYAMCODE, ALAMUKKU, VEERANAKAVU VILLAGE, IN KATTAKADA TALUK, RESIDING AT AVITTOM, PANANGODE, VENANOOR P.O., TRIVANDRUM (DIST) ,PIN-695 527 2 ARJUN AGED 21 YEARS S/O. AJITHAKUMAR, LEKSHMI BHAVAN, POOVACHAL, MOOLAYAMCODE, ALAMUKKU, VEERANAKAVU VILLAGE, IN KATTAKADA TALUK, RESIDING AT AVITTOM, PANANGODE, VENANOOR P.O., TRIVANDRUM (DIST) ,PIN-695 527 3 ADAHARSH, AGED 21 YEARS,S/O.PRADEEPAN POOVANAJI, POTHIYVEEDU, TRIPPNANGOTTOOR, POYILOOR, TRIPPANGOATTOR VILLAGE, KANNUR DISTRICT,PIN-670 693

TR.P(C) NO. 231 OF 2022 2 4 MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSRTC CHIEF OFFICE, FORT. P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN- BY ADVS. ANANDA RAJAN.N - R1, R2 G.KEERTHIVAS - R4 THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: TR.P(C) NO. 231 OF 2022 3

ORDER

The transfer petition is filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 (in short, 'C.P.C.'), seeking to transfer O.P.No.176 of 2021 (Annexure-D), from the Family Court, Nedumangad to the Family Court, Thalassery.

2. The petitioners’ case, in brief, in the

memorandum of transfer petition is that, the 1st petitioner is the widow of Ajithkumar. The 2nd petitioner is a twelve year old daughter born in the wedlock between the 1 st petitioner and the deceased. The respondents 1 and 2 are the children born in the first wedlock of the deceased. The 3rd respondent is alleged to be the son born out of the wedlock of the 1st petitioner. The 4th respondent is the employer of the deceased. The respondents 1 and 2 have filed Annexure-D before the Family Court, Nedumangad, inter-alia, to declare that they are the only legal heirs of the deceased. The petitioners have been impleaded as the respondents 1 and 3 in the said proceeding. The petitioners are residing in Kannur district, which is more TR.P(C) NO. 231 OF 2022 4 than 480 Kms away from the Family Court, Nedumangad. It will be extremely difficult for the petitioners to travel all the way from Kannur to Nedumangad to contest Annexure-D. Hence, the transfer petition.

3. The respondents 1 and 2 have filed a counter

affidavit denying the allegations in the transfer petition. They have, inter alia, contended that there is no marriage between the 1st petitioner and the deceased. It is only to harass them that the petitioners have filed the transfer petition. It would be difficult and inconvenient for the respondents 1 and 2 to also travel all the way from Thiruvananthapuram to Kannur to contest Annexure-D, if it is transferred. Hence, the transfer petition may be dismissed.

4. Heard Sri. Premchand R. Nair, the learned counsel

appearing for the petitioners, Sri. Ananda Rajan, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and Sri. G. Keerthivas, the learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent. TR.P(C) NO. 231 OF 2022 5

5. It is well settled in a catena of decisions by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sumitha Sing V. 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], Santhini V. Vijaya Venkatesh [2017 (4) KLT 415 (SC)], N.C.V. Aiswarya v. A.S. Sharavana Karthik Sha[2022(5) KHC 185] and Valsal Nisha v. Rajesh Soman Nair [2020(8) KLR 475], that the convenience of the woman and children has to be given preference, while ordering the transfer of a case from one Court to another.

6. Taking into account the fact that the 1st petitioner

is a widow and the 2nd petitioner is a girl aged only 12 years, and that the distance between Kannur and Nedumangad is more than 480 Kms on one side, I am of the definite view that due preference and weightage has to be given to the widow and the child of the deceased. The inconvenience caused to the respondents 1 and 2 can TR.P(C) NO. 231 OF 2022 6 be avoided to a larger extent by permitting them to move the Family Court, Thalassery, and seek for the dispensation of their personal appearance and also to avail the video conferencing facility, if so warranted.

7. In the light of the law laid down in the afore-cited

decisions and the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to exercise the discretionary powers of this Court under Section 24 of the C.P.C. and

order the transfer of Annexure-D.

In the result, I allow the transfer petition as follows:

(i) O.P.No.176 of 2021 is transferred from the Family Court, Nedumangad to the Family Court, Thalassery.

(ii) The Registry shall forward a copy of this order to the Family Court, Nedumangad with instructions forthwith to transmit the records in Annexure-D to the Family Court, Thalassery.

(iii) The Family Court, Thalassery shall, immediately on receipt of the records in Annexure-D, issue notice to the parties for their appearance. TR.P(C) NO. 231 OF 2022 7

(iv) The respondents 1 and 2 will be at liberty to move the Family Court, Thalassery and seek for dispensation of their personal appearance and to also avail the video conferencing facility, if necessary. Sd/-

C.S.DIAS, JUDGE okb/7.12.22 //True copy// P.S. to Judge TR.P(C) NO. 231 OF 2022 8 APPENDIX OF TR.P(C) 231/2022 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A TRUE COPY OF TRUE COPY OF THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR OF BIRTH AND DEATHS THALASSERY MUNICIPALITY DATED 10.06.2012 Annexure B TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE OF LATE

AJITHAKUMAR DATED 31.08.2016 ISSUED BY THE SUB REGISTRAR OF BIRTH AND DEATH, CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM Annexure C TRUE COPY OF THE TRUE COPY OF THE LEGAL HEIR SHIP CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE TAHASILDAR, KATTAKADA DATED 22.11.2016 Annexure D TRUE COPY OF THE OP NO.176 OF 2021 DATED 06.02.2021 PENDING ON THE FILES OF THE FAMILY COURT, NEDUMANGAD

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial