SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2003 Supreme(Ker) 701

Judges : K.K.DENESAN
Thomas - Appellant
Versus
Sunnichan - Respondent
Case No : T.R.P. (C) No. 51 of 2003
Decided On : 12/15/2003
Advocates Appeared :
V. Philip Mathew For Petitioners. Mathew Philip Edappallil For Respondent.

Headnote:

Family Courts Act 1984, Civil Procedure code - Section 7(1)(b) – 24 - Petition is filed to transfer O.P Divorce pending before Family Court was filed before by respondent who is husband of petitioner's daughter - Praying for return of patrimony and compensation from respondents Court has passed an order of attachment before Judgment against respondents have taken a preliminary objection before that Court contending that it has no jurisdiction to entertain filed by petitioner and his daughter - Relevant for a just and proper disposal of this Transfer Petition has given birth to a child said minor child born in wedlock between herself and first respondent is only 8 months old mother as well as minor child got infected with jaundice and they are undergoing treatment Due to ill health not able to travel to in District – Respondents in counter-affidavit filed before this court opposed the prayer for transfer of O.P Divorce pending – Held, Petitioner, in answer to objection raised by Counsel for respondents regarding jurisdiction of Family Court at to try and dispose of proceedings seeking a declaration that marriage between the parties was a nullity brought to my notice Divorce Act - Court not only to withdraw any such suit or proceeding from court of any District Judge within limits of its jurisdiction but also to transfer it for trial or disposal to the court to any other such District Judge in my view there is substance in the above submission made by for petitioner - Petitioner submitted that a husband who raise allegation that wife on account of some mental incapacity is unable to take care of herself cannot stand in the way of proceedings pending against her being conducted in a court which is nearer to place of her residence - It is also pointed out that averments made in Transfer Petition regarding distance between respective places have not been denied by respondents in the counter-affidavit - That being so it is evident that the Family Court at is a place which is convenient to both parties going by factum of distance – Petition disposed

Judgment :-

K.K. Denesan, J.

This Transfer Petition is filed to transfer O.P. (Divorce) No. 73 of 2003 pending before the Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor to the Family Court, Pathanamthitta at Thiruvalla to be tried along with O.P. No. 944 of 2003.

2. O.P. (Divorce) No.73 of 2003 was filed before the Family Court, Kottayam by the 1st respondent herein who is the husband of the petitioner's daughter Shiji @ Shija aged 31 years. The 2nd respondent herein is the father of the 1st respondent. It is for a declaration that his marriage with the petitioner's daughter is a nullity on the ground that the above named Shiji @ Shija is an idiot.

3. O.P. No. 944 of 2003 was filed by the petitioner herein and his daughter Shiji @ Shija before the Family Court, Pathanamthitta at Thiruvalla praying for return of patrimony and compensation from the respondents. The Family Court, Thiruvalla, has passed an order of attachment before judgment against the respondents. The respondents have taken a preliminary objection before that Court contending that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the O.P. filed by the petitioner and his daughter.

4. According to the petitioner, the following facts are relevant for a just and proper disposal of this Transfer Petition. Shiji @ Shija has given birth to a child. The said minor child born in the wedlock between herself and the first respondent is only 8 months old. The mother as well as the minor child got infected with jaundice and they are undergoing treatment. Due to ill health, Shiji @ Shija is not able to travel to Ettumanoor in Kottayam District where O.P. (Divorce) No. 73 of 2003 is pending. Family Court at Ettumanoor is 40 kms. away from Mundiyapally where the petitioner, his daughter Shiji @ Shija and the small baby reside whereas Family Court, Thiruvalla is just 10 kms. away from Mundiyapally. The first respondent is residing at Veroor in Vazhapally Village, Changanacherry Taluk. The distance between the residence of the respondents and the Family Court, Thiruvalla is less than 15 kms. whereas the distance between Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor and the residence of the respondents is more than 30 kms. It is therefore stated that the Family Court, Pathanamthitta at Thiruvalla is the court convenient for both the parties. According to the petitioner Shiji @ Shija and the 1st respondent last resided together in the petitioner's house at Mundiyapally. Hence the said court has got jurisdiction to try the case filed by the petitioner and his daughter.

5. Respondents, in the counter-affidavit filed before this court, opposed the prayer for transfer of O.P. (Divorce) No. 73 of 2003 pending before the Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor to the Family Court, Pathanamthitta at Thiruvalla on the ground that the Family Court at Thiruvalla lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain as also try and dispose of cases relating to the matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and the respondents. Respondents have already raised a preliminary objection before the Family Court, Pathanamthitta at Thiruvalla on the question of jurisdiction in O.P. No. 944 of 2003 filed by the petitioner herein and his daughter claiming patrimony and other sums from the respondents. The marriage between the petitioner's daughter and the 1st respondent is admitted in the counter-affidavit. The fact that a child was born in the wedlock is also admitted. However, averments regarding jaundice is not admitted. According to the respondents, O.P. No. 944 of 2003 has to be treated as a suit for money and since the alleged transactions took place within the territorial limits of the Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor, proceedings before the Family Court at Thiruvalla are hit by S.20 of the Civil Procedure Code. According to the respondents they are neither residing within the territorial limits of the Family Court at Thiruvalla nor the cause of action either wholly or in part has arisen within the jurisdiction of that court. The above trans












Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top