Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeTransfer petition allowed; OP No.1800/2021 tran...

Ashma v. Deepak T.R.

Case / Petition Number:TR.P(C) NO. 462 OF 2022

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • C.S.Dias
Judgment Date
2023-01-09
Court Decision / Holding
The transfer petition is allowed; OP No.1800/2021 is transferred from the Family Court, Ernakulam to the Family Court, Attingal. The parties may seek consolidation and joint trial of all related cases; the Registry shall transmit the records to Attingal and post Annexures III and VI along with Annexure I for immediate consideration; the Family Court, Attingal, is to post the case for joint trial upon receipt of records.
Final Disposition
Transfer petition allowed; OP No.1800/2021 transferred from Ernakulam FC to Attingal FC; consolidation with Annexures III and VI; records to Attingal; post for joint trial.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • ASHMA
  • AKSHITHA DEEPAK

Respondents

  • DEEPAK T.R.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • B.KRISHNA MANI
  • • SAABIR F. HAQ
  • • N.V.SANDHYA
  • • DHANUJA M.S

Counsels for Respondents

  • • V.JOHN MANI
  • • JACKSON JOHNY
  • • VARGHESE SABU
  • • SETHULAKSHMI K.K.

Case Synopsis & Summary

This transfer petition under Sec. 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure concerns Ashma, wife of Deepak T.R., and their daughter Akshitha Deepak, seeking to transfer OP 1800/2021 from the Family Court, Ernakulam, to the Family Court, Attingal. The petition outlines the matrimonial background: the first petitioner is the wife; the second petitioner is the minor daughter; the respondent had previously filed O.P.1612/2017 for divorce before the Family Court, Ernakulam, and that matter had been addressed by prior transfer orders. Annexures III and VI, respectively O.P. 1536/2021 and O.P. 427/2022, are already pending before the Family Court, Attingal, and the petitioners seek consolidation with Annexure I (OP 1800/2021) to be heard together. The petition argues that consolidation before a single bench would save judicial time and avoid conflicting judgments, given the respondent contests Annexures III and VI. The petition cites several Supreme Court/Kerala HC decisions emphasizing that the convenience of the woman and child governs transfer of matrimonial proceedings (Sumitha Sing v. Kumar Sanjay; 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). In light of these authorities and the totality of circumstances, the court exercised its discretion under Sec. 24 CPC and allowed the transfer, directing consolidation and transmission of records to Attingal for joint trial.

Provisions of Law Cited

Sec. 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Convenience of the woman and children is the guiding principle in transfer of matrimonial cases.
  • Discretion under Sec. 24 CPC to transfer proceedings to another Court.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicants contend that Sec. 24 CPC empowers this Court to transfer a matrimonial case to a forum where related proceedings are pending, to avoid conflicting judgments and promote efficiency. They highlight that the first petitioner is the wife and the second petitioner is the child; the respondent has a custody-related matter in Attingal (Annexures III and VI). The petition notes that Annexure I (OP 1800/2021) has already been transferred in related matters, and that Attingal is better placed to consolidate Annexures III and VI with Annexure I, enabling a united, expedited trial. The petition relies on Supreme Court and Kerala High Court authorities (Sumitha Sing; Mona Aresh Goel; Vaishali Shridhar Jagtap; Santhini Vijaya Venkatesh; NCV Aishwarya) to support the convenience principle, and contends the Court should exercise its discretionary power under Sec. 24 CPC to effect transfer for efficiency and coherence of decisions.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondent opposes the transfer, contesting Annexures III and VI before the Family Court, Attingal. Counsel contends that the proposed consolidation and transfer should not be allowed as it would prejudice ongoing proceedings and disrupt the respondent's defense, and that the matters should remain under the current forum or be transferred only if justified by clear convenience and law as interpreted by the courts.

Cited Precedents (5)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Sumitha Sing v. Kumar Sanjay and another2002 KHC 1889PositiveCited as authority establishing that transfer decisions in matrimonial disputes should consider convenience of the woman and child; used to support transfer.
Mona Aresh Goel v. Aresh Satya Goel2000 KHC 1835PositiveCited for the principle of convenience in transfer of matrimonial matters.
Vaishali Shridhar Jagtap v. Shridhar Vishwanath Jagtap2016 KHC 6489PositiveCited for the convenience principle in transfers.
Santhini V. Vijaya Venkatesh2017 (5) KHC 48PositiveCited for transfer norms and guidance.
N.C.V Aishwarya v. A.S Saravana Karthik Sha2022 (5) KHC 182PositiveCited for transfer considerations 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 Ashma v. Deepak T.R. 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. 462 OF 2022 ``` ``` 1 ``` ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** # **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS ``` ``` MONDAY, THE 9[TH] DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 19TH POUSHA, 1944 TR.P(C) NO. 462 OF 2022 ``` ## **`AGAINST OP 1800/2021 OF FAMILY COURT,ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PETITIONERS/RESPONDENT:`** ``` 1ASHMA, AGED 34 YEARS D/O.ANIRUDHAN, RESIDING AT ROHINI HOUSE, MAITHANAM, VARKALA P.O., VARKALA DESOM AND VILLAGE, VARKALA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695141. ``` ``` 2AKSHITHA DEEPAK, AGED 8 YEARS, ( MINOR) RESIDING AT ROHINI HOUSE, MAITHANAM, VARKALA P.O., VARKALA DESOM AND VILLAGE, VARKALA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695141. REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN, THE FIRST PETITIONER, ASHMA. AGED 34 YEARS, D/O.ANIRUDHAN,RESIDING AT ROHINI HOUSE, MAITHANAM, VARKALA P.O., VARKALA DESOM AND VILLAGE, VARKALA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695141. ``` ``` BY ADVS. B.KRISHNA MANI SAABIR F. HAQ N.V.SANDHYA DHANUJA M.S ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:`** ``` DEEPAK T.R., AGED 36 YEARS S/O.RAJAMANI, RESIDING AT NJARAKKATTUPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHUTTUPADUKARA P.O., EDAPPALLY NORTH VILLAGE, EDAPPALLY DESOM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682024. REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, RAJAMANI, AGED 68 YEARS, RESIDING AT NJARAKKATTUPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHUTTUPADUKARA P.O., EDAPPALLY NORTH VILLAGE, EDAPPALLY DESOM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682024. ``` ``` BY ADVS. ``` ``` TR.P(C) NO. 462 OF 2022 ``` ``` 2 ``` ``` V.JOHN MANI JACKSON JOHNY VARGHESE SABU SETHULAKSHMI K.K. ``` ``` THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` TR.P(C) NO. 462 OF 2022 ``` ``` 3 ``` ## **ORDER** The transfer petition is filed under Sec.24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking to transfer OP (Div) No.1800/2021 (Annexure-1) from the Family Court, Ernakulam to the Family Court, Attingal. 2. The petitioners’ case, in brief, in the memorandum of transfer petition is that, the first petitioner is the wife of the respondent. The second petitioner is the daughter born in the wedlock. The respondent had earlier filed O.P.No.1612/2017 before the Family Court, Ernakulam, against the first petitioner, seeking a decree of divorce. This Court, at the instance of the petitioner, by Annexure-II order in Tr.P(C) No.709/2017 transferred the said case from the Family Court, Ernakulam to the Family Court, Attingal. The first petitioner had filed O.P.No.1438/2016 and M.C No.370/2017 before the Family Court, Attingal, against ``` TR.P(C) NO. 462 OF 2022 ``` ``` 4 ``` the respondent. The cases were settled by way of compromise. The respondent has also filed O.P. No.1536/2021 (Annexure-III) before the Family Court, Attingal, against the first petitioner, seeking for the custody of the second petitioner. The petitioners have filed O.P. No.427/2022 (Annexure-VI) before the Family Court, Attingal, against the respondent, seeking a decree for return of gold ornaments and other ancillary reliefs. The petitioners are residing in Varkala. The respondent is contesting Annexures III and VI before the Family Court, Attingal. Therefore, no inconvenience would be caused to him in Annexure I being transferred. Hence, the transfer petition. 3. Heard; Sri.B.Krishna Mani, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri.V.John Mani, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 4. 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 ``` TR.P(C) NO. 462 OF 2022 ``` ``` 5 ``` 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 182]. The 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. 5. In the light of the law laid down in the afore-cited decisions, the pleadings and materials on record, the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that Annexures III and VI are already pending before the Family Court, Attingal, and the respondent is contesting the proceedings before the said Court, I am inclined to exercise the discretionary powers of this Court under Sec.24 of the Code of Civil Procedure ``` TR.P(C) NO. 462 OF 2022 ``` ``` 6 ``` and order the transfer of Annexures-I to the Family Court, Attingal, so that the cases can be consolidated and jointly tried, which would save precious judicial time and avoid conflict of decisions. In the result, I allow the transfer petition as follows: (i) OP No.1800/2021 is transferred from the Family Court, Ernakulam to the Family Court, Attingal. (ii) The parties would be at liberty to move the Family Court, Attingal and seek for consolidation and joint trial of all the cases between them. (iii) The Registry shall forward a copy of this order to the Family Court, Ernakulam, with instructions to forthwith transmit the records in Annexure-1 to the Family Court, Attingal. ``` TR.P(C) NO. 462 OF 2022 ``` ``` 7 ``` (iv) The Family Court, Attingal, shall, immediately on receipt of the records in Annexure-1,post the case along with Annexures-III and VI. ``` Sd/- ``` **C.S.DIAS JUDGE** ma/09.01.2023 ``` TR.P(C) NO. 462 OF 2022 ``` ``` 8 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF TR.P(C) 462/2022`** ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure ITRUE COPY OF THE O.P.NO. 1800/2021 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM DATED 13/8/2021. Annexure IITRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14/12/2017 IN TR.P. (C)NO.709/2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA. Annexure IIITRUE COPY OF THE O.P.(G&W) NO. 1536/2021 DATED 10/9/2021 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, ATTINGAL. Annexure IVTRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF O.P(FC)NO.304/2022 DATED 24/5/2022 BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. Annexure VTRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 30/7/2022 IN O.P(FC)NO.304/2022 BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. Annexure VITRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF O.P.NO.427/2022 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, ATTINGAL DATED 16/3/2022. ```