High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2022-11-08Common order disposing of three transfer petiti...

Ambili Jay Nakkara v. Kannan R G

Case / Petition Number:TR.P(C) NO. 458 OF 2022; TR.P(C) NO. 459 OF 2022; TR.P(C) NO. 557 OF 2022

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C.S. Dias
Judgment Date: 2022-11-08
Court Decision / Holding: The transfer petitions are allowed. O.P. No.720/2022 is to be transferred from the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram to the Family Court, Irinjalakuda; O.P. No.850/2022 is to be transferred from the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram to the Family Court, Irinjalakuda; and O.P. No.1903/2022 is to be transferred from the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram to the Family Court, Irinjalakuda. The parties are at liberty to seek consolidation and joint trial in Irinjalakuda. The Registry is directed to transmit records to Irinjalakuda immediately, and Irinjalakuda is to post the cases along with OP(HM).No.951/2022.
Final Disposition: Common order disposing of three transfer petitions; transfers allowed as described; liberty to consolidate and conduct joint trials; records to be transmitted to Irinjalakuda; Irinjalakuda to post cases along with HM 951/2022.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Ambili Jay Nakkara

Respondents

Kannan R G

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• S. Vinod Bhat
• Anagha Lakshmy Raman
• Greeshma Chandrika.R

Case Synopsis & Summary

The High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam, disposed of three connected Transfer Civil Proceedings (TR.P(C) Nos. 458/2022, 459/2022 and 557/2022) filed by Ambili Jay Nakkara seeking transfer of three Family Court proceedings from Thiruvananthapuram to Irinjalakuda under Section 24 CPC. The petitioner-wife alleges a strained marriage; after living together in the United States, the respondent returned to India and initiated proceedings (O.P. Nos. 720/2022, 850/2022) for nullity and damages, while she had already filed O.P(HM) No. 951/2022 in Irinjalakuda. Petitioner contends hardship and inconvenience in contesting cases in Thiruvananthapuram since her permanent residence and nearest family court are at Irinjalakuda; moreover, consolidation of all related cases would avoid multiplicity of proceedings and save judicial time. The respondent, who appeared only through the petitioner and did not appear through counsel, is not shown to have objected. The Court invoked settled law citing Sumitha Sing v. Kumar Sanjay and others, Mona Aresh Goel v. Aresh Satya Goel, Vaishali Shridhar Jagtap v. Shridhar Vishwanath Jagtap, Santhini V. Vijaya Venkatesh and N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha to hold that the convenience of the wife and children governs transfer decisions. Accordingly, the Court exercised its discretion under Section 24 CPC and transferred the petitions, with liberty to consolidate and conduct joint trials at Irinjalakuda.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Convenience of the woman and children as the decisive factor in transfer of matrimonial disputes (as supported by Sumitha Sing v. Kumar Sanjay and others, Mona Aresh Goel v. Aresh Satya Goel, Vaishali Shridhar Jagtap v. Shridhar Vishwanath Jagtap, Santhini V. Vijaya Venkatesh, N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha)
Discretion under Section 24 CPC to transfer and consolidate proceedings to avoid multiplicity of actions
No longer res integra: the law governing transfer of matrimonial proceedings has been settled

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that transfer to Irinjalakuda is warranted due to the petitioner’s permanent residence, ease of access and the respondent’s contest before Irinjalakuda, which would allow consolidation and avoid hardship. It is argued that the three proceedings (OPs 720/2022, 850/2022, 1903/2022) should be tried together in the Family Court at Irinjalakuda to save judicial time and prevent conflicting judgments. The petitioner highlights the absence of objection from the respondent and relies on established law that prioritizes the convenience of the wife and potential impact on children in transfer decisions.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondent did not appear through counsel; no formal objection is recorded in the document, and the court notes the uncontroverted pleadings. The order reflects no active opposition from the respondent’s side.

Cited Precedents (5)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Sumitha Sing v. Kumar Sanjay and another	2002 KHC 1889	Positive	Cited as a Supreme Court directive that emphasizes convenience of the woman/children in transfer of matrimonial disputes.
Mona Aresh Goel v. Aresh Satya Goel	2000 KHC 1835	Positive	Cited for the principle governing transfer of matrimonial matters in favor of the moving party’s convenience.
Vaishali Shridhar Jagtap v. Shridhar Vishwanath Jagtap	2016 KHC 6489	Positive	Cited to support the doctrine on convenience and transfer in matrimonial disputes.
Santhini V. Vijaya Venkatesh	2017 (5) KHC 48	Positive	Cited as part of the legal doctrine on transfer of matrimonial proceedings in favor of convenience.
N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha	2022 (5) KHC 185	Positive	Cited for continued enforcement of transfer principles in matrimonial matters.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Ambili Jay Nakkara v. Kannan R G and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

`TR.P(C) NO. 458, 459 and 557 OF 2022` 1 ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** # **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS ``` ``` TUESDAY, THE 8[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 17TH KARTHIKA, 1944 TR.P(C) NO. 557 OF 2022 ``` ## **`TO TRANSFER OP.1903/2022 OF FAMILY COURT,TRIVANDRUM`** ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` AMBILI JAY NAKKARA AGED 29 YEARS D/O. JAYARAJAN S. NAKKARA, RESIDING AT 2224, MALRAUX DRIVE, VIENNA, VIRGINIA 22182, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, REPRESENTED BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER- MINI, AGED 42 YEARS, W/O. BIJU, NAKKARA HOUSE, IRINJALAKUDA P.O., PIN-680121. BY ADVS. S.VINOD BHAT ANAGHA LAKSHMY RAMAN GREESHMA CHANDRIKA.R ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` KANNAN R G AGED 33 YEARS, S/O. J.REGHUKUMAR, RESIDING AT KARICHATTU VEEDU, PACHALLUR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695027. ``` ``` THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.11.2022, ALONG WITH Tr.P(C).458/2022, 459/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` `TR.P(C) NO. 458, 459 and 557 OF 2022` 2 ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** # **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS ``` ``` TUESDAY, THE 8[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 17TH KARTHIKA, 1944 TR.P(C) NO. 458 OF 2022 ``` ## **`TO TRANSFER OP 720/2022 OF FAMILY COURT,TRIVANDRUM`** ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` AMBILI JAY NAKKARA, AGED 29 YEARS D/O JAYARAJAN S. NAKKARA, RESIDING AT 2224, MALRAUX DRIVE, VIENNA, VIRGINIA 22182, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, NOW AT NAKKARA HOUSE, KORUMBISSERY, IRINJALAKUDA P.O., THRISSUR. PIN 680121 ``` ``` BY ADVS. S.VINOD BHAT ANAGHA LAKSHMY RAMAN GREESHMA CHANDRIKA.R ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` KANNAN R G,AGED 33 YEARS S/O J. REGHUKUMAR, RESIDING AT KARICHATTU VEEDU, PACHALLUR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PIN 695027. ``` ``` THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.11.2022, ALONG WITH Tr.P(C).557/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` `TR.P(C) NO. 458, 459 and 557 OF 2022` 3 ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS`** ``` TUESDAY, THE 8[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 17TH KARTHIKA, 1944 TR.P(C) NO. 459 OF 2022 ``` ## **`TO TRANSFER OP 850/2022 OF FAMILY COURT,TRIVANDRUM`** ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` AMBILI JAY NAKKARA AGED 29 YEARS D/O. JAYARAJAN S. NAKKARA , RESIDING A T 2224, MALRAUX DRIVE, VIENNA, VIRGINIA 22182, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, NOW AT NAKKARA HOUSE KORUMBISSERY, IRINJALAKUDA P.O., THRISSUR 680 121. BY ADVS. S.VINOD BHAT ANAGHA LAKSHMY RAMAN GREESHMA CHANDRIKA.R ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` KANNAN R G AGED 33 YEARS S/O.J. REGHUKUMAR, RESIDING AT KARICHATTU VEEDU, PACHALLUR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 027. ``` ``` THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.11.2022, ALONG WITH Tr.P(C).557/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` `TR.P(C) NO. 458, 459 and 557 OF 2022` 4 ## **ORDER** As these transfer petitions are between the same parties, they have been disposed of by this common order. 2. The transfer petitions are filed by the wife under Sec.24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to transfer O.P.Nos.720/2022, 850/2022 and 1903/2022 from the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram to the Family Court, Irinjalakuda. 3. The petitioner’s case, in brief, in the memorandum of transfer petitions, is: the petitioner is the wife of the respondent. Their marital relationship is strained. After marriage, the respondent went along with the petitioner to the United States of America and they lived together there as man and wife. The respondent returned to India and filed O.P.Nos.720/2022 and 850/2022, for a decree of nullity of marriage and decree for damages, respectively. The petitioner has filed `TR.P(C) NO. 458, 459 and 557 OF 2022` 5 O.P.No.1903/2022, for declaration of title over the property against the respondent, before the Family Court Thiruvananthapuram, as the property is situated within the jurisdiction of the said court. The petitioner has already preferred O.P(HM).No.951/2022 before the Family Court, Irinjalakuda against the respondent, seeking a decree of divorce. The petitioner is a permanent resident of Irinjalakuda. All her relatives are settled in Irinjalakuda. She travels to India annually. There is no person to chaperon her from Irinjalakuda to Thiruvananthapuram to contest the above cases. It would cause severe hardship to the petitioner to contest the above three cases before the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The respondent is contesting O.P. (HM) No.951/2022 before the Family Court, Irinjalakuda. Therefore, no inconvenience would be caused to the respondent, if the cases are transferred to the Family Court, Irinjalakuda. Hence, the transfer petitions. `TR.P(C) NO. 458, 459 and 557 OF 2022` 6 4. Heard; Sri. S.Vinod Bhat, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 5. This Court had referred the parties to Mediation on 26.07.2022. Even though the respondent had appeared before this Court and the Mediator, he has not entered appearance through counsel in the transfer petitions. Therefore, it is assumed that the respondent has no objection in the transfer petitions being allowed. 6. The law with respect to transfer of proceedings, particularly matrimonial disputes, is no longer resintegra, in view of the categoric declaration of law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Sumitha Sing V. Kumar Sanjay and another** [2002 KHC 1889], **Mona Aresh Goel V. Aresh Satya Goel** [2000 KHC 1835], **Vaishali Shridhar Jagtap V. Shridhar Vishwanath Jagtap** [2016 KHC 6489], **Santhini V. Vijaya Venkatesh** [2017 (5) KHC 48] and **N.C.V. Aishwarya vs. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha** [2022 (5) KHC 185]. The `TR.P(C) NO. 458, 459 and 557 OF 2022` 7 Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that it is the convenience of the woman and children that has to be looked into, while ordering the transfer of a case from one Court to another. 7. In the light of the law laid down in the aforecited decisions, the uncontroverted pleadings and materials on record, the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, especially the fact that the petitioner has already preferred O.P(HM).No.951/2022 before the Family Court, Irinjalakuda, and the respondent is contesting the proceeding before the said Court, I am inclined to exercise the discretionary powers of this Court under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure and order the transfer of O.P.Nos.720/2022, 850/2022 and 1903/2022 from the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram to the Family Court, Irinjalakuda, so that all the cases between the parties can be consolidated and jointly tried, which would save precious `TR.P(C) NO. 458, 459 and 557 OF 2022` 8 judicial time, avoid conflict of decisions and multiplicity of proceedings. In the result, I allow the transfer petitions as follows:- - (i) Tr.P© No.458/2022 is allowed by ordering transfer - of O.P.No.720/2022 from the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram to the Family Court, Irinjalakuda. - (ii) Tr.P© No.459/2022 is allowed by ordering transfer - of O.P.No.850/2022 from the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram to the Family Court, Irinjalakuda. - (iii) Tr.P© No.557/2022 is allowed by ordering transfer of O.P.No.1903/2022 from the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram to the Family Court, Irinjalakuda. - (iv) The parties would be at liberty to move the Family Court, Irinjalakuda and seek for consolidation and `TR.P(C) NO. 458, 459 and 557 OF 2022` 9 joint trial of all the cases between them. - (v) The Registry shall forward a copy of this common - order to the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram with instructions to forthwith transmit the records in O.P.Nos.720/2022, 850/2022 and 1903/2022 to the Family Court, Irinjalakuda - (iv) The Family Court, Irinjalakuda shall, immediately on receipt of the records in the above cases, post the cases along with OP(HM).No.951/2022. Sd/- **C.S.DIAS, JUDGE** rkc/08.11.2022 ``` TR.P(C) NO. 458, 459 and 557 OF 2022 ``` 10 ## **`APPENDIX OF TR.P(C) 458/2022`** ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure 1COPY OF PETITION OP 720/2022 OF FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM Annexure 2COPY OF PETITION OP (H.M)951/2022 OF FAMILY COURT , IRINJALAKUDA. ``` `TR.P(C) NO. 458, 459 and 557 OF 2022` 11 ## **`APPENDIX OF TR.P(C) 459/2022`** ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure 1COPY OF PETITION O.P. 850/2022 OF FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. Annexure 2COPY OF PETITION O.P. (H.M.), 951/2022 OF FAMILY COURT, IRINJALAKUDA. ``` `TR.P(C) NO. 458, 459 and 557 OF 2022` 12 ## **`APPENDIX OF TR.P(C) 557/2022`** ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure 1COPY OF PETITION O.P.1903/2022 OF FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. Annexure 2COPY OF PETITION O.P.(H.M.)951/2022 OF FAMILY COURT, IRINJALAKUDA. ```