Kerala High Court
Jaison K Sani vs Rasna Jaison on 23 May, 2016
Author: Anil K.Narendran
Bench: Anil K.Narendran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2017/11TH ASWINA, 1939
Tr.P(C).No. 626 of 2017 ()
---------------------------
TO TRANSFER OP 294/2013 of FAMILY COURT, IRINJALAKUDA TO
FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM.
---------------
PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENTS :
---------------------------------------------
1. JAISON K SANI,
AGED 44 YEARS, S/O K.O.SANI,
THEKKEKARA KORETH HOUSE,
PULLOOR P.O.,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680683.
2. TREESA SANI,
AGED 69 YEARS, W/O K.O. SANI,
THEKKEKARA KORETH HOUSE,
PULLOOR P.O.,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680683.
BY ADV. SRI.C.S.MANU
RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER :
--------------------------------------------
RASNA JAISON,
AGED 37 YEARS, D/O K.R. JOSEPH,
KOKKADAN HOUSE,
PUTHUKKAD P.O.,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680102.
THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 03-10-2017, ALONG WITH TR.P.(C).NO.628/2017 AND CONNECTED
CASE,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
TS
Tr.P(C).No. 626 of 2017 ()
-------------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES
-----------------------------------------
ANNEXURE A1:- TRUE COPY OF THE OP.NO.294 OF 2013 ON THE FILES OF THE
FAMILY COURT, IRINJALAKUDA FILED BY THE RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE A2:- TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT
IN O. P NO.294 OF 2013 ON THE FILES OF THE FAMILY COURT,
IRINJALAKUDA..
ANNEXURE A3:- TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 23.5.2016 IN
TR.P(C)NO.242 OF 2016 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT
OF KERALA.
RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURE - NIL
---------------------------------------------------
/TRUE COPY/
PS TO JUDGE
TS
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, J.
-----------------------------------------------
Tr.P.(C)Nos.626, 628, 629 and 630 of 2017
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 3rd day of October, 2017
O R D E R
Tr.P.(C)No.626/2017 is filed by the petitioners under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking an order to transfer O.P.No.294/2013 on the file of the Family Court, Irinjalakkuda, to the Family Court, Ernakulam. The said original petition is one filed by the respondent-wife seeking a decree for realisation of money in lieu of gold ornaments.
2. Tr.P.(C)No.628/2017 is filed by the petitioner under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking an order to transfer O.P.No.261/2014 on the file of the Family Court, Irinjalakkuda, to the Family Court, Ernakulam. The said original petition is one filed by the petitioner-husband seeking a decree for restitution of conjugal rights.
3. Tr.P.(C)No.629/2017 is filed by the petitioner under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking an order to transfer O.P.No.764/2012 on the file of the Family Court, Irinjalakkuda, to the Family Court, Ernakulam. The said original Tr.P.(C)Nos.626, 628, 629 and 630 of 2017 :-2-:
petition is one filed by the respondent-wife seeking a decree for divorce.
4. Tr.P.(C)No.630/2017 is filed by the petitioner under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking an order to transfer G.O.P.No.907/2013 on the file of the Family Court, Irinjalakkuda, to the Family Court, Ernakulam. The said original petition is one filed by the petitioner-husband under the provisions of Guardian and Wards Act seeking guardianship and custody of two minor children.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.
6. During the course of arguments, it is brought to the notice of this Court that seeking transfer of the said original petitions, which are now pending before the Family Court, Irinjalakuda, to Family Court, Ernakulam, the petitioner-husband filed Tr.P.(C)Nos.241, 242, 243 and 244 of 2016. In the said transfer petitions, it was contended that since both the parties are working at Ernakulam, it will be convenient for them to have the trial of these cases at the Family Court, Ernakulam. It was also alleged that the Presiding Officer in the Family Court had personally involved and inter-meddled with the issues outside the Tr.P.(C)Nos.626, 628, 629 and 630 of 2017 :-3-:
facts of the cases and expressed his personal views about the petitioner and as such,the said Officer had expressed his bias against the petitioner.
7. After considering the rival contentions, this Court by Annexure A3 order dated 23.5.2016 disposed of those transfer petitions and paragraph 6 of the said order reads thus ;
"6. Going by Annexure-A11 judgment, it could be seen that this Court had already passed an order granting joint trial of G.O.P.No.907/2013, O.P.No.764 of 2012, O.P.No.294 of 2013 and M.C.No.92 of 2013. Subsequently, the petitioner filed Tr.P.(Crl) No.34 of 2016 seeking an order transferring M.C.No.92 of 2013 to the Family Court, Ernakulam, and this Court dismissed the said petition with a finding that there are no sufficient grounds to transfer the M.C. to the Family Court, Ernakulam. Thus, in view of Annexure-A11 and the order dated 29/4/2016 passed in Tr.P. (Crl) No.34 of 2016, this Court is also of the view that among the 5 cases, 4 cases alone cannot be transferred to the Family Court, Ernakulam, in view of the joint trial ordered by Annexure-
A11 and the order passed in Tr.P.(Crl) No.34 of 2016. Hence the reliefs sought for in all these Tr.Ps.(C) will stand rejected. The Family Court, Irinjalakuda, is directed to dispose of these cases jointly as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."
8. Annexure A3 order passed by this Court was sought to be challenged by filing Special Leave Petitions before the Apex Court, along with application for condonation of delay. The said SLPs were allowed to be withdrawn by the order dated 22.9.2017 Tr.P.(C)Nos.626, 628, 629 and 630 of 2017 :-4-:
of the Apex Court.
9. Admittedly, it was seeking transfer of O.P.Nos.294/2013, 261/2014, 764/2012 and G.O.P.No.907/2013 from the Family Court, Irinjalakkuda, to the Family Court, Ernakulam, that the petitioner moved this Court in Tr.P.(C) Nos.241, 242, 243 and 244 of 2016, which resulted in Annexure A3 order, whereby the said relief was declined. Though an attempt was made to challenge the said order before the Apex Court, those SLPs were allowed to be withdrawn by the order dated 22.9.2017 of the Apex Court.
10. In such circumstances, the petitioners are not legally entitled to file these transfer petitions under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking the very same relief.
In the result, these transfer petitions fail and the same are accordingly dismissed.
All pending interlocutory applications are closed.
Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN JUDGE ami/5.10.17 //True copy// P.A.to Judge