High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2022-08-23Transferred TR.P(C) Nos. 331/2022 and 333/2022 ...

Ardra v. Sugunan & Ors. (Transfer Petition Nos. 331, 333 & 355 of 2022)

Case / Petition Number:TR.P(C) Nos. 331, 333 & 355 of 2022

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C.S. Dias
Judgment Date: 2022-08-23
Court Decision / Holding: The court disposed of TR.P(C) Nos. 331/2022 and 333/2022 by allowing the transfers of O.P.540/2022 and O.P.551/2022 from Kozhikode to Pathanamthitta, dismissed TR.P(C) No.355/2022, directed consolidation and joint trial possibility, and permitted the Family Court, Pathanamthitta to consider video conferencing and dispense with unnecessary personal appearances of spouse-relatives where non-inevitable. Records are to be transmitted to Pathanamthitta; Pathanamthitta to post the combined matters immediately.
Final Disposition: Transferred TR.P(C) Nos. 331/2022 and 333/2022 to Pathanamthitta; dismissed TR.P(C) No.355/2022. Directed consolidation and possible joint trial; records to Pathanamthitta; allowed videoconferencing and dispensation from unnecessary personal appearances where inevitable; Pathanamthitta to post cases on receipt of records.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Ardra
Yasodharan
Beeja Sadanandan
Sugunan

Respondents

Sugunan
Bipin M.S.
Ardra Yesodharan

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• M.T. Sureshkumar
• R. Renjith
• Smitha Philipose
• Manjusha K
• Sreelakshmi Sabu

Counsels for Respondents

• Pushparajan Kodoth
• K. Jayesh Mohankumar
• Vandana Menon
• Vimal Vijay

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a common order of the Kerala High Court (Single Judge, Justice C.S. Dias) disposing of three Transfer Civil Petitions (TR.P(C) Nos. 331, 333 & 355 of 2022) arising from marital disputes between Ardra and Sugunan and their respective relatives. TR.P(C) Nos. 331 and 333 were filed by Ardra (and her parents in 331) and by Ardra (and family) in 333 seeking transfer of O.P.540/2022 and O.P.551/2022 from the Family Court Kozhikode to Pathanamthitta, while TR.P(C) No. 355/2022 filed by Sugunan (and his parents) sought transfer of O.P.421/2022 from Pathanamthitta to Kozhikode. The court emphasizes that convenience of the petitioner-wife (and overall welfare) should be given due weight, citing a string of Kerala and Supreme Court decisions, notably Sumitha Sing v. Kumar Sanjay and Mona Aresh Goel v. Aresh Satya Goel, and rejects the notion that the existence of a power-of-attorney (POA) arrangement alone should dictate transfer, referencing Mini Antony v. Savio Aruja. However, the court also notes that the presence of spouses’ relatives can be dispensed with where not inevitable and approves the possibility of video-conferencing. Ultimately, the court allows transfers for two petitions (331/2022 and 333/2022), dismisses 355/2022, and directs consolidation and transmission of records to Pathanamthitta, with directions on appearances and timing for proceedings in the Pathanamthitta court.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contended that the convenience and welfare of Ardra (the wife) and the overall efficiency of adjudication necessitate transferring O.P.540/2022 (Kozhikode) and O.P.551/2022 (Kozhikode) to the Family Court, Pathanamthitta. They urged that the husband is employed abroad and proceedings are conducted through a Power of Attorney, which should not be the sole ground to invalidate a forum change. They asked for consolidation of all connected cases and permitted video conferencing to avoid unnecessary personal appearances. They asserted that personal appearance of the respondent’s parents and sister should not be ritualistically insisted upon if not inevitable. They relied on a body of case law (Sumitha Sing, Mona Aresh Goel, Vaishali Jagtap, Santhini Vijaya Venkatesh, Aiswarya N.C.V. v. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha) and Mini Antony v. Savio Aruja to support the forum for convenience but also to restrict POA-centric grounds.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argued to maintain the original forum linking Kozhikode for convenience of the parties, especially given the respondent-husband’s international assignment and ongoing POA arrangements. They emphasized that the mere convenience of the POA holder should not be a decisive factor and highlighted the need to balance issues of convenience with the rights and appearances of the parties. They requested that the petitions be decided without prejudicing the respondent’s position, and sought adherence to proper procedure with possible appearances or videoconferencing as allowed under law. They also cautioned against over-extending consolidation in multiple cases without ensuring due process.

Cited Precedents (6)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Mini Antony v. Savio Aruja	2022(3) KHC 42	Positive	Cited to establish that convenience of a power of attorney holder cannot be the sole ground to transfer a case.
Sumitha Sing v. Kumar Sanjay and another	2002 KHC 1889	Positive	Cited as part of the jurisprudence on forum convenience for matrimonial disputes.
Mona Aresh Goel v. Aresh Satya Goel	2000 KHC 1835	Positive	Cited for guidance on balancing convenience and forum transfer.
Vaishali Shridhar Jagtap v. Shridhar Vishwanath Jagtap	2016 KHC 6489	Positive	Cited in the context of forum change considerations.
Santhini V. Vijaya Venkatesh	2017 (5) KHC 48	Positive	Cited for principles on forum convenience and multiple factors in matrimonial disputes.
Aiswarya N.C.V. v. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha	2022 (5) KHC 185(SC)	Positive	Cited as part of the jurisprudence guiding forum change and related considerations.

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 Ardra v. Sugunan & Ors. (Transfer Petition Nos. 331, 333 & 355 of 2022) 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`** ``` TUESDAY, THE 23[RD] DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 1ST BHADRA, 1944 ``` ## **`TR.P(C) NO. 355 OF 2022`** ``` OP 421/2022 OF FAMILY COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA ``` ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` 1SUGUNAN AGED 62 YEARS S/O.LATE GOPALAN, MOOLANKANDIYIL HOUSE, THALAKULATHOOR, ANNASSERY P.O., KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673 317. 2PRASEETHA AGED 59 YEARS W/O.SUGUNAN, MOOLANKANDIYIL HOUSE, THALAKULATHOOR, ANNASSERY P.O., KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673 317. BY ADVS. PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR VANDANA MENON VIMAL VIJAY ``` ## **`RESPONDENT:`** ``` DR. ARDRA YESODHARAN AGED 29 YEARS D/O.YESODHARAN, ELANTHOOR HOUSE, MALAYALAPUZHA, THAZHAM P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689 666. BY ADVS. A.D.RAVINDRA PRASAD ALEX VARGHESE M.T.SURESHKUMAR R.RENJITH SMITHA PHILIPOSE MANJUSHA GOVIND SREELAKSHMI SABU ``` ``` THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.08.2022, ALONG WITH Tr.P(C).331/2022, 333/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` TR.P(C) Nos. 331, 333 & 355 OF 2022 ``` ``` 2 ``` ## `I` **`N THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS ``` ``` TUESDAY, THE 23[RD] DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 1ST BHADRA, 1944 ``` ``` TR.P(C) NO. 331 OF 2022 ``` ``` OP 540/2022 OF FAMILY COURT,KOZHIKODE ``` ## **`PETITIONERS:`** ``` 1ARDRA AGED 29 YEARS D/O. YASODHARAN, ELANTHOOR HOUSE, MALAYALAPUZHA, THAZHAM (PO), PATHANAMTHITTA-689666. ``` ``` 2YASODHARAN AGED 57 YEARS ELANTHOOR HOUSE, MALAYALAPUZHA, THAZHAM P O, PATHANAMTHITTA - 689666. 3BEEJA SADANANDAN ELANTHOOR HOUSE, MALAYALAPUZHA, THAZHAM P O, PATHANAMTHITTA-689666. ``` ``` BY ADVS. M.T.SURESHKUMAR R.RENJITH SMITHA PHILIPOSE MANJUSHA K SREELAKSHMI SABU ``` ## **`RESPONDENT:`** ``` SUGUNAN AGED 62 YEARS S/O GOPALAN, MOOLANKADAYIL HOUSE, THALAKULATHOOR, ANNASSERY (PO), KOZHIKODE - 673317. ``` ``` BY ADVS. PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH ``` ``` TR.P(C) Nos. 331, 333 & 355 OF 2022 ``` ``` 3 ``` ``` K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR VANDANA MENON VIMAL VIJAY ``` ``` THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.08.2022, ALONG WITH Tr.P(C).355/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` TR.P(C) Nos. 331, 333 & 355 OF 2022 ``` ``` 4 ``` ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS`** ``` TUESDAY, THE 23[RD] DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 1ST BHADRA, 1944 ``` ## **`TR.P(C) NO. 333 OF 2022`** ``` OP 551/2022 OF FAMILY COURT,KOZHIKODE ``` ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` ARDRA AGED 29 YEARS D/O. YASODHARAN, ELANTHOOR HOUSE, MALAYALAPUZHA, THAZHAM (PO), PATHANAMTHITTA-689666. ``` ``` BY ADVS. M.T.SURESHKUMAR MANJUSHA K SREELAKSHMI SABU SMITHA PHILIPOSE R.RENJITH ``` ## **`RESPONDENT:`** ``` BIPIN M. S.AGED 32 YEARS S/O SUGUNAN, MOOLANKADAYIL HOUSE, THALAKULATHOOR ANNASSERY (PO), KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SUGUNAN, S/O. GOPALAN, MOOLANKADAYIL HOUSE, THALAKULATHOOR ANNASSERY (PO), KOZHIKODE - 673317. ``` ``` BY ADVS. PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR VANDANA MENON VIMAL VIJAY ``` ``` THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.08.2022, ALONG WITH Tr.P(C).355/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` TR.P(C) Nos. 331, 333 & 355 OF 2022 ``` ``` 5 ``` ## **COMMON ORDER** As these transfer petitions arise out of the marital disputes between Ardra (wife) and Bipin M.S. (husband) and their relatives, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Tr.P(C) No.331/2022 is filed by the wife and her parents against the husband, to transfer O.P.No.540/2022 from the Family Court, Kozhikode to the Family Court, Pathanamthitta; Tr.P(C)No.333/2022 is filed by the wife against the husband, to transfer O.P.No.551/2022 from the Family Court, Kozhikode to the Family Court, Pathanamthitta and Tr.P(C)No.355/2022 is filed by the parents of the husband against the wife, to transfer O.P.No.421/2022 from the Family Court, Pathanamthitta to the Family Court, Kozhikode. The parties are, for the sake of convenience, referred to as per the pleadings in ``` TR.P(C) Nos. 331, 333 & 355 OF 2022 ``` ``` 6 ``` Tr.P(C)No.333/2022, which is treated as the leading case. 3. The petitioner and the respondent were married on 16.09.2020. They are issueless. The respondent is a Mechanical Engineer working in Oman. The parties allege, that as the marriage is irretrievably broken, the respondent has filed O.P.No.551/2022 through his power of attorney holder and father, before the Family Court, Kozhikode against the petitioner, for a decree of divorce. Likewise, the petitioner has filed O.P.No.421/2022 before the Family Court, Pathanamthitta, against the respondent, his parents and sister for a decree for return of gold ornaments and other valuables. The respondent has filed O.P.No.540/2022, before the Family Court, Kozhikode, against the petitioner and her parents, to restrain them from entering the matrimonial home. 4. Undisputedly, the respondent-husband is employed abroad. The proceedings are being conducted through the ``` TR.P(C) Nos. 331, 333 & 355 OF 2022 ``` ``` 7 ``` respondent’s power of attorney holder. 5. This Court in **Mini Antony v. Savio Aruja** [2022(3) KHC 42] has categorically held that the convenience of a power of attorney holder cannot be a ground to order the transfer of a case. 6. Admittedly, the parents of the petitioner and the respondent are parties in O.P.No.540/2022 before the Family Court, Kozhikode and O.P.No.421/2022 before the Family Court, Pathanamthitta. 7. Ultimately the dispute is between the petitionerwife and the respondent-husband, only whose presence is required before the Family Court. Nonetheless, with a rider that the personal appearance of the relatives of the spouses can be dispensed with. Therefore, I am inclined to give due preference to the convenience of the petitionerwife as laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in plethora of decisions, to name a few: **Sumitha Sing V.** ``` TR.P(C) Nos. 331, 333 & 355 OF 2022 ``` ``` 8 ``` **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 **Aiswarya N.C.V. v. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha** [2022 (5) KHC 185(SC)]. 8. In the light of the law laid down in the afore-cited decisions, the pleadings and materials on record and the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to allow Tr.P.(C) Nos.331/2022 and 333/2022 and dismiss Tr.P.(C)No.355/2022 . Resultantly, I dispose of the transfer petitions as follows:- (i) Tr.P.(C)No.355/2022 is dismissed. (ii) Tr.P(C)No.331/2022 is allowed by ordering the transfer of O.P.No.540/2022 from the Family Court, Kozhikode to the Family Court, Pathanamthitta. ``` TR.P(C) Nos. 331, 333 & 355 OF 2022 ``` ``` 9 ``` (iii) Tr.P(C)No.333/2022 is allowed by ordering the transfer of O.P.No.551/2022 from the Family Court, Kozhikode to the Family Court, Pathanamthitta. (iv) The parties would be at liberty to move the Family Court, Pathanamthitta and seek for the consolidation and joint trial of all the cases between them. (v) The Family Court, Pathanamthitta shall not ritualistically insist for the personal appearance of the parents and the sister of the respondent-husband, unless their presence is inevitable. (vi) The respondent-husband will be at liberty to move the Family Court, Pathanamthitta and seek for the video conferencing facility. (vii) The Registry shall forward a copy of this order to the Family Court, Kozhikode with instructions to forthwith transmit the records in O.P.Nos.540/2022 and 551/2022 to the Family Court, Pathanamthitta. ``` TR.P(C) Nos. 331, 333 & 355 OF 2022 ``` ``` 10 ``` (viii) The Family Court, Pathanmthitta shall, immediately on the receipt of the records in O.P.Nos.540/2022 and 551/2022, post the case along with O.P.No.421/2022. Sd/- **C.S.DIAS, JUDGE** rmm/23/08/2022 ``` TR.P(C) Nos. 331, 333 & 355 OF 2022 ``` ``` 11 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF TR.P(C) 331/2022`** ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES ``` ``` Annexure 1TRUE COPY OF THE OP NO. 540 OF 2022 DATED 30.3.2022 ON THE FILE 9-12 OF THE FAMILY COURT, KOZHIKODE. ``` ``` Annexure 2TRUE COPY INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 2 OF 2022 DATED 30.3.2022 ON THE FILE OF HONORABLE FAMILY COURT KOZHIKODE. ``` ``` Annexure 3TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 2.4.2022 IN I A NO. 2 OF 2022 IN O.P NO. 540 OF 2022 ON THE FILE OF HONOURABLE FAMILY COURT KOZHIKODE. I ``` ``` Annexure 4TRUE COPY OF O P NO. 421 OF 2022 FILED ON THE FILE OF THE FAMILY COURT AT PATHANAMTHITTA DATED 16.4.2022. ``` ``` TR.P(C) Nos. 331, 333 & 355 OF 2022 ``` ``` 12 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF TR.P(C) 333/2022`** ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES ``` ``` Annexure 1TRUE COPY OF THE OP NO. 551 OF 2022 ON THE FILE OF THE FAMILY COURT, KOZHIKODE DATED NIL. ``` ``` Annexure A2TRUE COPY OF O P NO. 421 OF 2022 ON THE FILE OF THE FAMILY COURT AT PATHANAMTHITTA DATED 16.4.2022. ``` ``` TR.P(C) Nos. 331, 333 & 355 OF 2022 ``` ``` 13 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF TR.P(C) 355/2022`** ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES ``` ``` Annexure ATRUE COPY OF OP 551/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE FAMILY COURT, KOZHIKODE DATED 10/03/2022. ``` ``` Annexure BTRUE COPY OF OP 421/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE FAMILY COURT, KOZHIKODE DATED 16/04/2022. ``` ``` Annexure CTRUE COPY OF OP 540/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE FAMILY COURT, KOZHIKODE DATED 30/03/2022. ``` ``` Annexure DTRUE COPY OF INTERIM ORDER IN OP 540/22 ON THE FILE OF THE FAMILY COURT, KOZHIKODE DT. 30/03/2022. ``` ``` Annexure ETRUE COPY OF MEDICAL CERTIFICATE ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF THE 1ST PETITIONER AND HIS DAUGHTER. ```