High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2022-12-07Transfer petitions allowed; OP Nos. 546/2020 an...

Anagha T. Murali v. Praveen Mohan and Others (TR.P(C) Nos.701/2021 & 702/2021)

Case / Petition Number:TR.P(C) Nos.701/2021 & 702/2021

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C.S. Dias, J.
Judgment Date: 2022-12-07
Court Decision / Holding: The transfer petitions are allowed. OP No.546 of 2020 and OP No.545 of 2020 are transferred from the Family Court, Irinjalakuda to the Family Court, Ernakulam. The parties may seek consolidation and joint trial in Ernakulam. The Registry is to forward the common order to the Family Court, Irinjalakuda with instructions to transmit the records to Ernakulam. The Family Court, Ernakulam is to issue notices to the parties for appearance.
Final Disposition: Transfer petitions allowed; OP Nos. 546/2020 and 545/2020 transferred to Family Court, Ernakulam; consolidation and joint trial permitted; records to be transmitted and notices to be issued.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Anagha T. Murali

Respondents

Praveen Mohan
P.G. Mohan Chetiyar
Vijay M. Chettiar
The Branch Manager, State Bank of India

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• K.R. Sripathi
• Anupama Subramanian

Counsels for Respondents

• P.R. Ajith Kumar
• K. Manoj Chandran
• S.A. Mansoor (Pattanam)
• Ammu Charles

Case Synopsis & Summary

The Kerala High Court, in a common order arising from two transfer petitions, deals with Anagha T. Murali’s request to transfer two Family Court cases (OP 546/2020 and OP 545/2020) from Irinjalakuda to Ernakulam under Section 24 of the CPC. The petitioner, wife of the first respondent, contends that the marriage is strained and she along with two minor children now reside in Ernakulam where she has secured employment, while the first respondent is employed in Mumbai. The two Family Court proceedings concern a decree for return of money and gold ornaments (OP 546/2020) and dissolution of the marriage (OP 545/2020). The petitioner argues that proceeding in Irinjalakuda would cause severe prejudice and inconvenience to her and the children, and that consolidation and joint trial in Ernakulam would save judicial time and avoid conflicting outcomes. The respondents’ positions are heard by the court, though explicit submissions are not detailed in the order. The court grounds its decision on a well-established line of Supreme Court authority emphasizing the convenience of the woman and the welfare of the children in transfer disputes, and notes that the petitioner and children reside in Ernakulam while the first respondent is in Mumbai. Ultimately, the court allows the transfers, authorizes consolidation and joint trial at Ernakulam, and directs notices and records transmission accordingly.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Convenience of the woman and children in transfer of matrimonial or related proceedings should be given preference.
Transfer and consolidation reduce judicial time and multiplicity of proceedings.
Court may exercise discretionary power under Section 24 CPC to transfer proceedings for purposes of convenience and to avoid prejudice.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner argued that the two Family Court proceedings should be transferred from Irinjalakuda to Ernakulam under Section 24 CPC due to the petitioner and two minor children residing in Ernakulam, the first respondent’s employment in Mumbai, and the risk of prejudice and inconvenience if proceedings remain in Irinjalakuda. Consolidation and joint trial would save judicial time and avoid conflicting decisions.

Contentions of Respondents

The order records hearing of counsel for both sides, but does not set out explicit distinct arguments from the respondents. The court nevertheless proceeds to consider the convenience principle and the potential for consolidation, ultimately preferring transfer in light of the petitioner’s and children’s residence and the first respondent’s location in Mumbai.

Cited Precedents (6)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Sumithra Sing v. Kumar Sanjay	(2001) 10 SCC 41	Positive	Cited as part of the catena of decisions supporting preference for the convenience of the wife and children in transfer orders.
Mona Aresh Goel v. Aresh Satya Goel	(2000) 9 SCC 255	Positive	Referenced to reinforce the principle of prioritizing the petitioner’s convenience and welfare in transfer proceedings.
Vaishali Shridhhar Jagtap v. Shridhar Vishwanath Jagtap	AIR 2016 SC 3584	Positive	Cited to uphold the convenience principle in matrimonial transfer scenarios.
Santhini V. Vijaya Venkatesh	(SC) 2017 (4) KLT 415	Positive	Used in support of transferring where welfare of wife and children is central.
N.C.V. Aiswarya v. A.S. Sharavana Karthik Sha	2022(5) KHC 185	Positive	Cited in the context of enabling transfer to protect the interests of the applicant and minor children.
Valsal Nisha v. Rajesh Soman Nair	2020(8) KLR 475	Positive	Affirms the welfare-based approach to transfer and consolidation 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 Anagha T. Murali v. Praveen Mohan and Others (TR.P(C) Nos.701/2021 & 702/2021) and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS`** ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 7[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944 ``` ``` TR.P(C) NO. 701 OF 2021 ``` ## **`OP 546/2020 OF FAMILY COURT, IRINJALAKUDA`** ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` ANAGHA T. MURALI, AGED 36 YEARS,D/O. MURALI,ANUGRAHAM HOUSE, MANAVALISHERY VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR-680 121. ``` ``` BY ADVS. K.R.SRIPATHI ANUPAMA SUBRAMANIAN ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** - `1 PRAVEEN MOHAN, AGED 45 YEARS,S/O. MOHAN, SIVAPRIYA,U-80 TC 7/954, SHIVAPRIYA,UDAYANNUR DEVI TEMPLE LANE, MARUTHAMKUZHI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 030.NOW RESIDING AT FLAT A- 903, SIDHIVINAYAK UTOPIA, PLOT NO. 191, SECTOR 20, ULWE, MUMBAI 410 206.` ``` 2P.G. MOHAN CHETIYAR, AGED 78 YEARS,S/O. GOPALAN CHETIYAR, SIVAPRIYA, U-80, TC 7/954, SHIVAPRIYA, UDAYANNUR DEVI TEMPLE LANE, MARUTHAMKUZHI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 030. ``` ``` 3VIJAY M. CHETTIAR, AGED 69 YEARS,W/O. MOHAN CHETIYAR, SIVAPRIYA, U-80, TC 7/954, SHIVAPRIYA,UDAYANNUR DEVI TEMPLE LANE, MARUTHAMKUZHI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 030. ``` - `4 THE BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA (70692), RUPURAL GARDENS BRANCH, SECTOR 23 SEA WOODS, NERUL, NAVI MUMBAI 400 706.` ``` BY ADVS.P.R.AJITH KUMAR ``` ``` K.MANOJ CHANDRAN S.A.MANSOOR (PATTANAM) AMMU CHARLES ``` ``` THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ``` ``` ON 07.12.2022, ALONG WITH Tr.P(C).702/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` TR.P(C)NOS.701/2021 & 702/2021 :2: ``` # **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS ``` ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 7[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944 TR.P(C) NO. 702 OF 2021 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENTOP 545/2020 OF FAMILY COURT, ``` ## **`IRINJALAKUDA`** ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` ANAGHA T MURALI, AGED 36 YEARS D/O. MURALI, ANUGRAHAM HOUSE, MANAVALLSHERY VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR 680 121. BY ADVS. K.R.SRIPATHI ANUPAMA SUBRAMANIAN ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` PRAVEEN MOHAN, AGED 45 YEARS S/O. MOHAN, SIVAPRIYA, U-80, TC 7/954, SHIVAPRIYA, UDAYANNUR DEVI TEMPLE LANE, MARUTHAMKUZHI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 030, RESIDING AT LAT A-903, SIDHIVINAYAK UTOPIA, PLOT NO. 191, SECTOR 20, ULWE, MUMBAI 410 206. BY ADVS. P.R.AJITH KUMAR K.MANOJ CHANDRAN S.A.MANSOOR (PATTANAM) AMMU CHARLES ``` ``` THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.12.2022, ALONG WITH Tr.P(C).701/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` TR.P(C)NOS.701/2021 & 702/2021 :3: ``` ## **COMMON ORDER** As the transfer petitions are between the same parties, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitioner wife has filed the transfer petitions to transfer OP. Nos.546 of 2020 and 545 of 2020 pending before the Family Court, Irinjalakuda to the Family Court, Ernakulam. 3. The common case of the petitioner, in brief, in the two transfer petitions, is that, she is the wife of the 1[st] respondent. The respondents 2 and 3 are the parents of the 1[st] respondent. The 4[th] respondent is a formal partythe State Bank of India. The marital relationship between the petitioner and the 1[st] respondent is strained. The petitioner has filed OP. No.546 of 2020 before the Family Court, Irinjalakuda against the respondents for a decree for return of money and gold ornaments and O.P.No.545 of 2020 before the same court, for dissolution of the marriage. The petitioner was constrained to file the above two proceedings before the Family Court, Irinjalakuda, ``` TR.P(C)NOS.701/2021 & 702/2021 :4: ``` since the cause of action for the proceedings arose within the jurisdiction limits of the said court. The 1[st] respondent is employed in Mumbai. The petitioner has now secured an employment in a company in Ernakulam and she and the two minor children are in permanently residing Ernakulam. The children are pursuing their studies in a school in Ernakulam. The 1[st] respondent seldom appears before the Family Court, Irinjalakuda. The petitioner and her children would be put to severe prejudice and inconvenience, if they are to appear before the Family Court, Irinjalakuda. Hence, the transfer petitions. 4. Heard Sri.K.R. Sripathi, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.P.R. Ajithkumar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, in the two transfer petitions. 5. It is well settled in a catena of decisions by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in _**Sumitha Sing V. Kumar Sanjay and another**_ [(2001)10 SCC 41)], _**Mona Aresh Goel V. Aresh Satya Goel**_ [(2000) 9 SCC 255], _**Vaishali**_ ``` TR.P(C)NOS.701/2021 & 702/2021 :5: ``` _**Shridhar Jagtap V. Shridhar Vishwanath Jagtap**_ [AIR 2016 SC 3584], _**Santhini V. Vijaya Venkatesh**_ [2017 (4) KLT 415 (SC)], _**N.C.V. Aiswarya v. A.S. Sharavana Karthik Sha**_ [2022(5) KHC 185] and _**Valsal Nisha v. Rajesh Soman Nair**_ [2020(8) KLR 475], that the convenience of the woman and children has to be given preference, while ordering the transfer of a case from one Court to another. 6. On a consideration of the pleadings and materials on record, the totality of the facts and circumstances of the cases and the law laid down in the above cited decisions, particularly the fact that the petitioner and the two minor children are residing within the jurisdiction of the Family Court, Ernakulam, and the 1[st] respondent is presently employed in Mumbai, I am inclined to exercise the discretionary powers of this Court under Section 24 of the C.P.C. and order the transfer of OP Nos. 546 of 2020 and 545 of 2020 from the Family Court, Irinjalakuda to the Family Court, Ernakulam, so that the cases can be ``` TR.P(C)NOS.701/2021 & 702/2021 :6: ``` consolidated and jointly tried which will save precious judicial time and avoid conflict of decisions and multiplicity of proceedings. In the result, I allow the transfer petitions as follows: - (i) Tr.P(C) No.701 of 2021 is allowed by ordering the transfer of O.P. No.546 of 2020 pending before the Family Court, Irinjalakuda to the Family Court, Ernakulam. - (ii) Tr.P(C) No.702 of 2021 is allowed by ordering the transfer of O.P. No.545 of 2020 pending before the Family Court, Irinjalakuda to the Family Court, Ernakulam. - (iii) The parties will be at liberty to move the Family Court, Ernakulam, and seek for the consolidation and joint trial of all the cases between them. - (iv) The Registry shall forward a copy of this common order to the Family Court, Irinjalakuda with instructions forthwith to transmit the records in O.P. No.546 of 2020 and O.P. No.545 of 2020 to the Family Court, Ernakulam. ``` TR.P(C)NOS.701/2021 & 702/2021 :7: ``` (v) The Family Court, Ernakulam shall, immediately on receipt of the records in the above two cases, issue notice to the parties for their appearance. Sd/- ## **C.S.DIAS, JUDGE** okb/7.12.22 //True copy// P.S. to Judge ``` TR.P(C)NOS.701/2021 & 702/2021 :8: ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF TR.P(C) 701/2021`** ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure 1 ``` ``` A TRUE COPY OF O.P. NO. 546 OF 2020 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT IRINJALAKUDA . ``` ``` TR.P(C)NOS.701/2021 & 702/2021 :9: ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF TR.P(C) 702/2021`** ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES ``` ``` Annexure A1 ``` ``` A TRUE COPY O.P. NO. 545 OF 2020 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, IRINJALAKUDA. ```