0

The Kerala High Court allows Transfer Petition filed by the wife on grounds of convenience in divorce case

Blog ,

Case Title : Rajam Babu V Babu K.K 

Bench : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil K. Narendran 

Date : 21/06/2023

Transfer Petition No. 76 of 2023 

Introduction:

In this case review, we explore a legal matter involving the transfer of a matrimonial dispute. The case revolves around a wife’s request to move her divorce case from one court to another for her convenience. Let’s take a closer look at the facts, analysis, and judgement of this case, which highlights the importance of considering the convenience of the parties involved.

Facts:

  1. The appellant, who is the wife, filed a Transfer Petition (C) No.76 of 2023 seeking to transfer O.P.No.2752 of 2019 from the Family Court, Ernakulam to the Family Court, Thrissur.
  2. The Transfer Petition was dismissed on 25.05.2023.
  3. The appellant and the respondent are Hindus governed by the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
  4. O.P.No.2752 of 2019 is a petition for divorce filed by the respondent before the Family Court, Ernakulam.
  5. The appellant had also filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights, O.P.No.1119 of 2019, before the Family Court, Thrissur.
  6. The appellant sought the transfer of O.P.No.2752 of 2019 based on her convenience and the requirement for a joint trial of the two cases.

Analysis:

  1. The court refers to previous judgments, including Guda Vijayalakshmi v. Guda Ramchandra Sekhara Sastry, which held that divorce and restitution of conjugal rights petitions between the same parties should be heard and decided together to avoid conflicting decisions.
  2. Section 21A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 provides for the transfer of petitions in certain situations. Sub-section (2)(b) of Section 21A allows for the transfer of a petition presented later to the district court where the earlier petition was presented.
  3. The court cites previous judgments, including Mona Aresh Goel v. Aresh Satya Goel, Sumita Singh v. Kumar Sanjay and another, Vaishali Shridhar Jagtap v. Sridhar Vishwanath Jagtap, and Santhini v. Vijaya Venkatesh, which emphasize the importance of considering the convenience of the wife in deciding a petition for transfer of a matrimonial dispute.
  4. The court notes that the wife’s convenience should be given priority, and the husband should ordinarily take proceedings in the court where the wife resides to minimise inconvenience and avoid delay.

Judgement:

  1. The court concludes that the appellant’s request for the transfer of O.P.No.2752 of 2019 from the Family Court, Ernakulam to the Family Court, Thrissur should be allowed.
  2. Considering the appellant’s age (69 years), the respondent’s age (72 years), and the principles established in previous cases, the court finds that the transfer is necessary and fair.
  3. The appeal is allowed, and the Family Court, Ernakulam is directed to transmit the records of O.P.No.2752 of 2019 to the Family Court, Thrissur.

click here to view judgement

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

WRITTEN BY- ANVITHA RAO

0

Appeal by Village Officer convicted for accepting bribe dismissed by the Kerala High Court

Blog ,

Case Title: M/S.Shreyas Marketing V. Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council

Bench : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kauser Edappagath

Date : 16/06/2023 

Criminal Appeal No. 1692 of 2013

Facts:

This case involves an appeal filed by the appellant/accused against the judgement of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kottayam. The appellant was convicted and sentenced under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The prosecution’s case is that the appellant, while working as a Village Officer in 2006, accepted a bribe of ₹650/- from the complainant for providing a location map.

Analysis:

The appellant’s counsel argued that the prosecution failed to prove the demand for illegal gratification and that the evidence of acceptance was not convincing. The defence claimed that the appellant was framed by the complainant, who put the marked currency notes in the appellant’s pocket. The prosecution relied on the testimonies of the complainant (PW1), an independent witness (PW2), and the investigating officer (PW9) to establish the guilt of the appellant.

Judgement:

The court noted that the appellant admitted to receiving the possession certificate and issuing the location map to the complainant. The prosecution’s evidence, including the marked currency notes recovered from the appellant, supported the allegation of demand and acceptance of the bribe. The court found that the evidence presented by the prosecution was reliable and sufficient to establish the guilt of the appellant. The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence imposed by the court below. The appellant was sentenced to six months of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹10,000/- under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and one year of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹15,000/- under Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Act. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

Conclusion:

The court found the appellant guilty of accepting a bribe as a public servant and affirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the lower court. The testimonies of the complainant and other witnesses, along with the recovery of the marked currency notes, were considered strong evidence against the appellant. The court’s decision reflects the importance of combating corruption and holding public servants accountable for their actions.

click here to view judgement

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

WRITTEN BY- ANVITHA RAO

0

THE KERALA HIGH COURT SAYS AGAIN THAT MAGISTRATE CANNOT IMPOSE CONDITION TO DEPOSIT CASH SECURITY WHILE GRANTING BAIL

Blog ,

Bench – THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

Case Title – RAJESH V STATE OF KERALA

Case No – CRL.MC NO.  3385 OF 2023

Date – 30/05/2023

FACTS – 

  1. The petitioners are accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Crime No. 1103/2022 of the Vadakkancherry Police Station.
  2. They are accused of offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 r/w Section 34 of the IPC.
  3. The final report was not filed within the statutory period, so the petitioners applied for statutory bail.
  4. The learned magistrate granted statutory bail but imposed a condition that the accused must deposit a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as cash security for appearance.
  5. The learned magistrate justified this condition by relying on the judgments in Sumit Mehta v. State [2013 (2) KLD 677] and Lekha v. State [2019 (3) KLJ 825].
  6. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the judgments relied on by the magistrate relate to anticipatory bail and are not applicable to the present case.
  7. The counsel cited the Supreme Court’s judgement in Saravanan v. State [2020 (9) SCC 101], which states that no cash security can be imposed while granting default bail.

JUDGEMENT – 

  1. The court considered the submissions and reviewed the records.
  2. The court referred to the Supreme Court’s judgement in Saravanan v. State, which clarifies that no condition of depositing the alleged amount involved can be imposed while granting default bail under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C.
  3. The court held that the judgments relied on by the magistrate were not applicable to the present case.
  4. The court set aside Condition No. 2 in Annexure-1 order (which required the cash security deposit) and allowed the petition.
  5. All other conditions imposed by the magistrate remained unchanged.

click here to view judgement

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

WRITTEN BY – ANVITHA RAO

0

WRIT PETITION CHALLENGING PROPERTY TAX IN THE KERALA HIGH COURT

Blog ,

Bench – THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

Case Title – Mohammed Kabeer V The Secretary

Case No – WP (C) NO.41464 OF 2016

Date – 31/05/2023

Facts – 

In this case, the petitioner had constructed a building in the year 2000, and it was assessed for property tax based on its annual rental value. The petitioner had been paying the property tax as demanded. However, without any prior notice of intimation, the petitioner received a demand notice (Ext.P5) in 2016, requiring them to pay an additional amount of Rs. 1,36,731 as property tax for the period starting from 2013-2014. The petitioner argued that they were not given any opportunity to object or contest the revision of the tax assessment. They contended that their building, which was more than 15 years old at the time of the notice, did not require any enhancement in terms of the rules. 

The respondents, in their counter affidavit, stated that the Ext.P5 demand was raised based on a general revision of property tax authorised by the government through a notification issued in 2011. They claimed that the petitioner’s building, with a plinth area of 840 sq.m., was assessed at Rs. 35,280 based on the revised rates.

JUDGEMENT – 

After considering the arguments presented, the court noted that the 2011 notification (Ext.R1(a)) was only meant to fix the minimum and maximum property tax rates for specific classes of buildings. The court emphasised that even with such a notification, a demand for tax cannot be automatically raised without following the proper procedure outlined in the law and rules, which includes assessing the tax payable based on the total plinth area of the building.

The court found that the Ext.P5 demand was raised without conducting a proper assessment, rendering it incompetent. The petitioner’s contention that the tax had been demanded at the maximum rate specified in Ext.R1(a) without considering relevant factors, such as the age of the building, was deemed valid. Consequently, the court set aside the Ext.P5 demand notice.

The court issued a direction stating that if the petitioner submits objections to the assessment of property tax, the Secretary should consider them and pass a proper order of assessment with notice to the petitioner.

 Any future demands based on the new assessment should be made in accordance with the provisions of the Panchayat Raj Act and the rules. The Panchayat was given one month to notify the petitioner about the assessment, and subsequent action, considering the objections raised by the petitioner, should be taken within two months after that. 

click here to view judgement

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

WRITTEN BY – ANVITHA RAO 

0

THE KERALA HIGH COURT DIRECTED THE COMMISSIONER OF ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS TO EXTEND THE TIME LIMIT FOR UPLOADING PLUS TWO EXAMINATIONS MARKS

Blog ,

Case Title – Jeffin Jose T V The Central Board of Secondary Education

Bench – THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN 

Case No – WP(C) NO. 18077 OF 2023(H) 

Date Of Order – 08/06/2023

Facts Of The Case –

  1. The writ petition is filed to correct an anomaly in the internal/practical marks for Mathematics awarded to the petitioners by the 4th respondent school.
  2. The petitioners have submitted representations (Ext.P4 to P6 and Ext.P8 to Ext.P11) highlighting the issue with the marks.
  3. The petitioners also seek an extension of the time limit to upload their Plus Two Examination marks for the Entrance examination (KEAM-2023).
  4. The writ petition was considered on 2nd June 2023, and notice was issued to the 4th respondent and instructions were sought from the Government Pleader and the Standing Counsel of CBSE.
  5. On 5th June 2023, the court ordered the 5th respondent to give three more days to upload the qualifying examination marks. The 4th respondent school was directed to redress the grievance, and the court warned that the school’s recognition would be cancelled if the issue remained unresolved. The order was applicable only to the petitioners.
  6. The matter came up for consideration again on 7th June 2023. The school authorities had approached CBSE for corrections, and CBSE assured that necessary steps would be taken.
  7. The court opined that CBSE should also take necessary steps to rectify the mistake made by the school authorities to protect the future of the students.
  8. The school authorities requested CBSE to allot double marks, and CBSE agreed to do so in accordance with the law.
  9. The next hearing is scheduled for 22nd June 2023.

Judgements – 

  1. On 5th June 2023, the court ordered the 5th respondent to extend the time limit for uploading qualifying examination marks. The court warned that the school’s recognition would be cancelled if the issue was not resolved.
  2. On 7th June 2023, the court ordered the school authorities and CBSE to take necessary steps to rectify the mistake in the internal assessment marks for Mathematics.
  3. The court extended the interim order until 8th June 2023.
  4. The petitioners were allowed to upload modified marks in the KEAM Candidate portal before 3:00 pm on the same day.
  5. The court left all other contentions raised by the petitioners open to be decided during the final hearing, which is scheduled for 22nd June 2023.

click here to view judgement,,

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

WRITTEN BY – ANVITHA RAO

1 … 8 9 10 11