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

2018 Supreme(Ker) 460

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Alexander Thomas, J.
Soniya. S, D/O. Sivadas – Petitioner
Versus
Lijo M.Jose, S/O. M.D. Jose – Respondent
Tr.P(C).Nos. 4, 164, 146 & 147 of 2017
Decided On : 21-03-2018

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Sri. C.A. Chacko, Smt. C.M. Charisma, Smt. Megha K. Xavier, Advs.
For the Respondent: Sri. C. Dheeraj Rajan, Adv.

Headnote:Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Sections 24 and 25 - Special Marriage Act 1954, S. 40A - Hindu Marriage Act 1955, S. 21 - Deliberation of a petition filed under Sections 24 or 25 of the C.P.C., is different and separate from Section 40A of the Special Marriage Act and Section 21A of the Hindu Marriage Act.

ORDER :

The main prayer in Tr.P(C).No.4/2017 is as follows:

“pass an order to transfer Annexure A2 O.P.No.1880/2016 from Family Court, Thrissur to Family Court, Ernakulam.”

The main prayer in Tr.P(C).No.164/2017 is as follows:

“pass an order to transfer Annexure A2 I.A.No.980/2017 and O.P.No.313/2017 from Family Court, Thrissur to Family Court, Ernakulam.”

The main prayer in Tr.P(C).No.146/2017 is as follows:

“Allow this transfer petition by ordering to transfer Anx B O.P 2405/2016 filed by the respondent seeking dissolution of marriage as per the Special marriage act pending before the family court, Ernakulam to Family court, Thrissur where O.P 1880/2016 is pending.”

The main prayer in Tr.P(C).No.147/2017 is as follows:

“Allow this transfer petition by ordering to transfer O.P 2406/2016 filed by the respondent herein before the family court, Ernakulam to Family court, Thrissur where O.P 1880/2016 is pending.”

2. The prayer in these petitions is for transfer of litigative proceedings between spouses from one Family Court to other Family Court. Accordingly, all these matters are disposed of as per this common order. The petitioner in Tr.P.(C).Nos.4 & 164 of 2017 is the wife of the petitioner in Tr.P.(C).Nos.146 & 147 of 2017.

3. Heard Smt.C.M.Charisma, learned counsel appearing for the wife and Sri. Dheeraj Rajan, learned counsel appearing for the husband.

4. Differences of opinion between the spouses involved in these cases have led to the matrimonial disputes, which in turn have led to litigative proceedings between them in two Family Courts. The wife has filed O.P.No.2406/2016 seeking return of gold ornaments before the Family Court, Ernakulam and she has also filed O.P.No.2405/2016 seeking divorce under Sec.27(d) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, before the Family Court, Ernakulam. The husband has filed O.P.No.1880/2016 before the Family Court, Thrissur, seeking divorce under Sec.10(1)(x) of the Divorce Act and he has also filed O.P.No.313/2017 seeking custody of the child before the Family Court, Thrissur. The wife has also filed M.C.No.500/2016 before the Family Court, Ernakulam under Sec.125 of the Code of Criminal procedure. The present four Transfer Petitions are in relation to 4 out of the 5 litigative proceedings between the spouses. No application has been filed by the husband seeking transfer of M.C.No.500/2016 filed by the wife, which is now pending before the Family Court, Ernakulam.

5. The husband belongs to Christian religion and the wife is a Hindu. After a love affair, the parties have agreed for solemnizing and registering the marriage under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act, 1954. Accordingly, the marriage of the parties was solemnized on 28.4.2012 in accordance with the provisions contained in Chapter II of the Special Marriage Act and necessary marriage certificate has also been issued under the provisions of the Act. It is also the admitted case of the parties that later the parties had also solemnized the marriage in a Church (St.Antony's Church, Mannoothy, Thrissur), presumably as envisaged in the Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872 (which permits the marriage to be solemnized as long as one of the parties be a Christian and other need not be a Christian). A child (boy) was born in the said wedlock on 1.11.2013. The child, Shivshankar @ Allen is said to be 4 years old and he is with the mother, who is residing at Ernakulam, after the parties have started living separately.

6. The main contention raised by the wife is that she is now residing with her child at Ernakulam and she finds it extremely difficult to travel all the way from Ernakulam to Thrissur in respect of Divorce O.P.No.1880/2016 and G.O.P.No.313/2017 filed by the husband. It is the case that as per a catena of rulings of the Apex Court and High Court, the court while exercising power under Sec.24 of the C.P.C would give due consideration to the convenience of the wife in the conduct of the family litigative proceedings. It is thus urged that












































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

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 Back to top