Kerala High Court
Niyazi Haneefa vs Jasmin.S on 23 September, 2019
Author: Shaji P.Chaly
Bench: Shaji P.Chaly
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2019 / 1ST ASWINA, 1941
Tr.P(C).No.362 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP 185/2019 OF FAMILY COURT,
ATTINGAL
PETITIONER/S:
1 NIYAZI HANEEFA
AGED 41 YEARS
S/O A.M.HANEEFA, 647, PULINKALA HOUSE, PAPPALA,
KILIMANOOR P.O., PAZHAYAKUNNUMEL VILLAGE,
KILIMANNOOR, TRIVANDRUM, PIN-695 601, NOW RESIDING AT
15 E SKY LINE DOMAIN, THAMPURANMUKKU, TRIVANDRUM,
PIN-695 583.
2 MUHAMMAD HANEEFA
AGED 72 YEARS
S/O. ALIYARKUNJ, RESIDING AT 647, PULINKALA HOUSE,
PAPPALA, KILIMANOOR P.O., PAZHAYAKUNNUMEL VILLAGE,
KILIMANNOOR, TRIVANDRUM, PIN-695 601, NOW RESIDING AT
15 E SKY LINE DOMAIN, THAMPURANMUKKU, TRIVANDRUM,
PIN-695 583.
3 RAHILA
AGED 62 YEARS
W/O. MUHAMMAD HANEEFA, RESIDING AT 647, PULINKALA
HOUSE, PAPPALA, KILIMANOOR P.O., PAZHAYAKUNNUMEL
VILLAGE, KILIMANNOOR, TRIVANDRUM, PIN-695 601, NOW
RESIDING AT 15 E SKY LINE DOMAIN, THAMPURANMUKKU,
TRIVANDRUM, PIN-695 583.
BY ADV. SRI.C.R.SURESH KUMAR
RESPONDENT/S:
JASMIN.S
AGED 35 YEARS
W/O NIYAZI HANEEFA, RESIDING AT PUNNADHUILLA,
KALLAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM NOW RESIDING AT 4C,
SFS IVY CYBER, PALM, THAMPURANMUKKU, TRIVANDRUM, PIN-
695 583.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.ANOOP (MULAVANA)
THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
23.09.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Tr.P(C).No.362 OF 2019
2
ORDER
First petitioner is the husband of the respondent in this transfer petition and second and third petitioners are his father and mother respectively. Petitioners seek transfer of O.P.No.185/2019 on the files of the Family Court, Attingal to the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. According to the petitioners, petitioners 2 and 3 are very aged, and they are unable to travel to the Family Court, Attingal to conduct the case filed by the respondent for recovery of gold ornaments. It is also submitted that, if all the cases are tried together, it will be convenient to the parties as well as it will avoid multiplicity of proceedings.
2. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that, respondent is a resident of Kallambalam and in order to attend the proceedings at Family Court, Thiruvnanthapuram, she has to travel 40 km. It is also submitted that, respondent has to rear a child aged 11 years also, and if the respondent has to travel all the way to Thiruvnanthapuram, it will seriously and materially affect the routine life of the Tr.P(C).No.362 OF 2019 3 respondent.
3. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the pleadings and documents on record.
4. In my considered view, normally when a petition is filed by the wife before a Family Court, the husband is to be directed to appear before the said court, and it is an admitted fact that, the husband is appearing before the Family Court at Attingal in O.P.No.185/2019. It is also admitted that the respondent will have to travel 40 km to attend the court proceedings at the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. Learned Counsel for the petitioners apprehends that, petitioners 2 and 3, who are aged persons, if directed to appear before the Family Court, Attingal, it will cause serious prejudice to them.
5. After evaluating the situation, I am of the considered opinion that the proceedings pending before the Family Court, Thiruvanathapuram filed by the petitioners namely O.P.No.2659/2018 and O.P.No.1222/2018 seeking custody of minor child and recovery of immovable properties respectively are to be transferred to Family Court, Attingal to be tried along Tr.P(C).No.362 OF 2019 4 with O.P.No.185/2019 filed by the respondent wife for convenience, and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. However, it is only fair and proper that the petitioners 2 and 3 are directed to appear before the Family Court, Attingal, only when their presence is vitally required before the said court.
In that view of the matter, this transfer petition is disposed of, directing the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram to transfer OP.No.2659/2018 and O.P.No.1222/2019 to the Family Court, Attingal to be tried along with O.P.No.185/2019, at the earliest and at any rate within a month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till such time the interim order granted by this Court will continue to be in force. However, I make it clear that, the presence of petitioners 2 and 3 shall not be insisted upon by the Family Court, Attingal, unless and until their presence is vitally required for any purpose including, settlement, trial proceedings in the said suit etc. etc. The transfer petition is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
SHAJI P.CHALY JUDGE jm Tr.P(C).No.362 OF 2019 5 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A1 A COPY OF PETITION IN OP NO.185 OF 2019 IN THE FILE OF FAMILY COURT ATINGAL.
ANNEXURE A2 A COPY OF PETITION IN OP NO.2659/2018 IN THE FILE OF FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
ANNEXURE A3 A COPY OF PETITION IN OP NO.1222/2019 IN THE FILE OF FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.