High Court of KeralaTr.P(C)/114/2014dismissed

Ziauddin Ahammed v. Dr. Jilsha

2015-03-09Honourable Mr.Justice P.Bhavadasan3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN MONDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF MARCH 2015/18TH PHALGUNA, 1936 Tr.P(C).No. 114 of 2014 () --------------------------- FOR TRANSFER OF OP 127/2014 of FAMILY COURT, IRINJALAKUDA TO FAMILY COURT ERNAKULAM.

PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENT 2 AND 3 IN OP:

----------------------------------------

1. ZIAUDDIN AHAMMED, AGED 66 YEARS, S/O.AHAMMED, RETIRED PWD ENGINEER, ZIANA MANZIL, CHAKKARAPARAMBU ROAD, PONNURUNNI VILLAGE, THAMMANAM DESOM, KANAYANNOOR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

2. NEJUMA, AGED 60 YEARS, W/O.ZIAUDDIN AHAMMED, ZIANA MANZIL, CHAKKARAPARAMU ROAD, PONNURUNNI VILLAGE, THAMMANAM DESOM, KANAYANNOOR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

BY ADVS.SRI.T.M.RAMAN KARTHA SRI.JOSEPH RONY JOSE SMT.O.A.NURIYA RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER & 1ST RESPONDET:

-----------------------------------------

1. DR. JILSHA, AGED 30 YEARS, D/O.C.M.ABDUL JABBAR, CHUNDAKAYIL HOUSE, KAIPPAMANGALAM POST, PIN-680 681 KAIPPAMANGALAM VILLAGE, KODUNGALLOOR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

2. DR.SAMEER, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.ZAIUDDIN AHAMMED, S/O.AHAMMED, RETIRED PWD ENGINEER, ZIANA MANZIL, CHAKKARAPARAMBU ROAD, PONNUIRUNNI VILLAGE, PIN-682 032.

R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.SHAJU PURUSHOTHAMAN ADV. SRI.K.S.RAJESH THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09-03-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

P. BHAVADASAN, J.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Tr.P.(C). No. 114 of 2014 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 9th day of March, 2015.

ORDER

The wife instituted proceedings for return of gold alleged to have been given at the time of marriage arraying the husband as well as his parents as respondents.

2. This petition is filed by the parents of the husband seeking to have O.P. 127 of 2014 transferred from Family Court, Irinjalakuda to Family Court, Ernakulam. Two reasons are given for seeking transfer, they are, one, the petitioners are aged and, two, the respondent is also residing at Ernakulam.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the first respondent pointed out that the claim made is that the first respondent is residing at Kaipamangalam. Drawing attention to the cause title also, it is pointed out that the

Tr.P.(C).114/2014.

petitioner before this Court has no case that the respondent is residing in Ernakulam.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners then pointed out that the petitioners are suffering from various ailments.

5. Since the petition is for return of gold ornaments, it is not necessary for the petitioners to appear the court on all posting dates. They need to appear for evidence and in case of mediation, they may have to appear.

The reasons given are not sufficient to order transfer. This petition is without merits and it is dismissed. P. BHAVADASAN, sb.

JUDGE