High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2024-03-22Dismissal of Tr.P(C)(Nos.122, 116) and allowanc...

Deepa.S v Suresh.P.

Case / Petition Number:Tr.P.(C.) Nos.122, 116 & 117 of 2024

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C. Jayachandran
Judgment Date: 2024-03-22
Court Decision / Holding: The court holds that the petitioner’s convenience alone cannot govern transfers. Tr.P.(C.) Nos.122 and 116/2024 are dismissed, whereas Tr.P.(C.) No.117/2024 is allowed. O.P. No.117/2023 (Punalur) is directed to be transferred to the Family Court, Pathanamthitta to be considered along with the other two proceedings, and the transferor court is directed to transmit the entire records to the transferee court forthwith.
Final Disposition: Dismissal of Tr.P(C)(Nos.122, 116) and allowance of Tr.P(C)(No.117/2024); O.P.117/2023 to be transferred to Pathanamthitta; records to be transmitted; matters to be considered together in the transferee court.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Deepa.S

Respondents

Suresh.P.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• A. Rajasimhan
• Vykhari.K.U

Counsels for Respondents

• Nirmal V. Nair
• Nesili Nazeer
• Encil K. Sabu

Case Synopsis & Summary

This judgment from the Kerala High Court deals with three Transfer Petitions (Tr.P(C) Nos. 122, 116 and 117 of 2024) filed by Deepa.S., wife of Suresh P., seeking transfer of three Original Petitions from Family Courts at Pathanamthitta, Kottarakkara and Punalur to the Family Court at Adoor. The petitions involve O.P.(G&W) No.148/2023 of Pathanamthitta, O.P.(HMA) No.147/2023 of Pathanamthitta (formerly numbered 530/2020) and O.P. No.117/2023 at Punalur. The petitioner contends that after the establishment of the Family Court at Adoor, it would be more convenient for the parties and witnesses for these matters to be heard there; Annexure-A2 had earlier transferred two matters to Pathanamthitta, but now Adoor offers greater convenience. The respondent husband argues that the petitioner resides in the Pathanamthitta/Punalur area and the respondent resides in Kottarakkara, and that travelling to Adoor would cause substantial hardship for him. The Court recognises that convenience is a factor in transfer petitions but not an absolute rule. It cites Anindita Das v. Srijit Das (2006 KHC 1887) to caution against the misuse of leniency toward women. The Court concludes that transferring O.P. Nos.122 and 116 to Adoor would cause serious hardship to the husband, while transferring 117/2023 to Adoor would not be appropriate. Consequently, Tr.P.(C.) Nos.122 and 116/2024 are dismissed; Tr.P.(C.) No.117/2024 is allowed, directing transfer of O.P. No.117/2023 from Punalur to Pathanamthitta to be heard with the other two petitions.”

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Not an absolute rule that the convenience of the wife alone should govern transfer petitions.
Anindita Das v. Srijit Das (2006 KHC 1887) observation that leniency toward women in transfer petitions may be misused.
Section 24 CPC empowers court to transfer cases in appropriate cases for valid grounds.
Convenience of both parties and potential hardship must be balanced in transfer petitions.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that after the establishment of a Family Court at Adoor, transferring the three Original Petitions there would be in the interests of substantial justice and convenience for the petitioner, witnesses, and the child, if any. Annexure-A2 evidences prior transfers to Pathanamthitta, but the advent of Adoor makes Adoor the most appropriate forum. The petitioner argues that Section 24 CPC grants the Court power to transfer cases for valid grounds and that convenience principles should guide, not dictate, forum selection, especially where unequal travel burdens exist and where the court’s resources (Family Court at Adoor) are now available.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondent contends that the wife’s convenience cannot override the husband’s right and practical hardship. He resides at Kottarakkara, and transfer to Adoor would cause him unreasonable travel and hardship. It was earlier reasonable to transfer to Pathanamthitta due to non-establishment of Adoor’s Family Court; now that Adoor is established, it is argued that a transfer to Adoor cannot be ordered at the cost of grave hardship to the petitioner. The court must balance both sides’ convenience and not grant unilateral relief. The respondent also highlights the ‘leniency’ concern about women abusing transfer petitions, urging caution in extending forum advantages.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Anindita Das v. Srijit Das	2006 KHC 1887	Positive	Court cites the observation from Anindita Das to caution against over-leniency toward women in transfer petitions and to justify not transferring solely for the petitioner’s convenience.

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 Deepa.S v Suresh.P. 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. JAYACHANDRAN ``` ``` FRIDAY, THE 22[ND] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 2ND CHAITHRA, 1946 ``` ## `TR.P(C) NO. 122 OF 2024` ``` OP(HMA) NO.147 OF 2023 OF FAMILY COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA ``` ## `PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENT:` ``` DEEPA.S. AGED 43 YEARS W/O SURESH.P. DILEEP BHAVANAM, EZHAMKULAM, NEDUMAN.P.O., ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 691556 BY ADVS. A.RAJASIMHAN VYKHARI.K.U ``` ## `RESPONDENT( S )/PETITIONER:` ``` SURESH.P. S/O PRABHAKARAN, SURYASREE HOUSE, VENCHEMPU.P.O., KOLLAM, PIN - 691333 ``` ``` BY ADV NIRMAL V NAIR ``` ``` THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.03.2024, ALONG WITH Tr.P(C).116/2024, 117/2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` Tr.P.(C.) Nos.122, 116 & 117 of 2024 ``` 2 ## `IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM` ## `PRESENT` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 22[ND] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 2ND CHAITHRA, 1946 ``` ## `TR.P(C) NO. 116 OF 2024` ``` OP(GW) NO.148 OF 2023 OF FAMILY COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA ``` ## `PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENT:` ``` DEEPA.S. AGED 43 YEARS W/O SURESH.P. DILEEP BHAVANAM, EZHAMKULAM, NEDUMAN.P.O., ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 691556 BY ADVS. A.RAJASIMHAN VYKHARI.K.U ``` ## `RESPONDENT( S )/PETITIONER:` ``` SURESH.P. S/O PRABHAKARAN, SURYASREE HOUSE, VENCHEMPU.P.O., KOLLAM, PIN - 691333 BY ADVS. NIRMAL V NAIR ENCIL K. SABU(K/771/2023) ``` ``` THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.03.2024, ALONG WITH Tr.P(C).122/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` Tr.P.(C.) Nos.122, 116 & 117 of 2024 ``` 3 ``` IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ``` ## `PRESENT` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 22[ND] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 2ND CHAITHRA, 1946 ``` ## `TR.P(C) NO. 117 OF 2024` ``` OP NO.117 OF 2023 OF FAMILY COURT, PUNALUR ``` ## `PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENT:` ``` DEEPA.S. AGED 43 YEARS W/O SURESH.P. DILEEP BHAVANAM, EZHAMKULAM, NEDUMAN.P.O., ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 691556 BY ADVS. A.RAJASIMHAN VYKHARI.K.U ``` ## `RESPONDENT( S )/PETITIONER:` ``` SURESH.P. S/O PRABHAKARAN, SURYASREE HOUSE, VENCHEMPU.P.O., KOLLAM, PIN - 691333 BY ADVS. NIRMAL V NAIR NESILI NAZEER(K/003120/2023) ``` ``` THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.03.2024, ALONG WITH Tr.P(C).122/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` Tr.P.(C.) Nos.122, 116 & 117 of 2024 ``` 4 **C.JAYACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------------------Tr.P.(C.) Nos.122, 116 & 117 of 2024 ------------------------------------------------Dated this the 22[nd] day of March, 2024** ## **ORDER** The petitioner is the wife, who seeks transfer of three Original Petitions to the Family Court, Adoor. In Tr.P.(C.) No.116/2024, O.P.(G&W) No.148/2023 pending before the Family Court, Pathanamthitta is sought to be transferred to Family Court, Adoor. Similarly, in Tr.P.(C.) No.117/2024, O.P. No.117/2023 pending before the Family Court, Punalur is sought to be transferred to the Family Court, Adoor. Likewise, in Tr.P.(C.) No.122/2024, O.P.(HMA) No.147/2023, pending before the Family Court, Pathanamthitta is sought to be transferred to the Family Court, Adoor. As a matter of fact, O.P.(HMA) No.147/2023 [previously numbered as O.P.(HMA) No. 530/2020], as also, ``` Tr.P.(C.) Nos.122, 116 & 117 of 2024 ``` 5 O.P.(G&W) No.148/2023 [previously numbered as O.P. (G&W) No. 22/2021], both of the Family Court, Kottarakara were transferred to the Family Court, Pathanamthitta on the ground of the convenience of the petitioner/wife, as per Annexure-A2 order passed by this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner/wife would now submit that, at the time when Annexure-A2 order was passed, Family Court, Adoor was not established, which is the reason why the Original Petitions were sought to be transferred to the Family Court, Pathanamthitta. After the establishment of Family Courts at Adoor and Punalur, O.P. No.371/2020 has been transferred to the Family Court, Punalur suo moto for administrative reasons and has been renumbered as O.P. No.117/2023. According to the learned counsel, the Court which is most convenient to the petitioner/wife is the Family Court, Adoor. Therefore, all the above referred three Original Petitions are to be transferred to the Family Court, Adoor, is the ``` Tr.P.(C.) Nos.122, 116 & 117 of 2024 ``` 6 submission made. The convenience of the petitioner/wife is liable to be taken stock of while considering Transfer Petitions. It is the further contention that, insofar as, O.P.(G&W) is concerned, the place where the child ordinarily resides, is the Court having jurisdiction, which is also the Family Court, Adoor, to which transfer is sought for. 2. This application was seriously opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent pointing out that the respondent/husband is residing at Kottarakkara and that it would be inconvenient for him to travel to Adoor to prosecute/defend the above referred proceedings. Learned counsel would submit that no serous hardship will be caused to the petitioner, since it would take fifteen minutes to travel to the Family Court, Adoor, while it would taken only thirty minutes to travel to the Family Court, Pathanamthitta. 3. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on both sides, this Court is of the opinion that the ``` Tr.P.(C.) Nos.122, 116 & 117 of 2024 ``` 7 interests of both parties will be served, O.P. No.117/2023 pending before the Family Court, Punalur is also transfered to the Family Court, Pathanamthitta, where the other two Original Petitions are pending consideration. As already indicated, the two Original Petitions referred above were transferred to the Family Court, Pathanamthitta from the Family Court, Kottarakara, as per the request made by the present petitioner, which culminated in Annexure-A2 order. Now, for the reason that a Family Court is established at Adoor and that it is more convenient to the petitioner, the matters are not liable to be again transferred as desired by the petitioner. It is one thing to say that the convenience of the petitioner is to be considered while fixing the forum for adjudication of matrimonial disputes. However, the said legal position was recognised and settled only in the context of the wife being put to the task of traversing substantial distance for the purpose of prosecuting/defending the ``` Tr.P.(C.) Nos.122, 116 & 117 of 2024 ``` 8 proceedings, which would cause serious inconvenience to the petitioner/wife. It is equally settled that it is not an absolute rule that the convenience of the wife alone need be considered while considering transfer motions in matrimonial matters. The following observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anindita Das v. Srijit Das [2006 KHC 1887] is apposite in the context: “3. Even otherwise, it must be seen that at one stage this Court was showing leniency to ladies. But since then it has been found that a large number of transfer petitions are filed by women taking advantage of the leniency shown by this Court. On an average at least 10 to 15 transfer petitions are on board of each court on each admission day. It is, therefore, clear that leniency of this Court is being misused by the women.” 4. In the instant case, as already indicated, the petitioner/wife sought for transfer to Pathanamthitta, which was allowed vide Annexure-A2. Now, if these matters are transferred to Adoor, the same will cause serious inconvenience to the respondent/husband, who is residing within the limits of the Family Court, ``` Tr.P.(C.) Nos.122, 116 & 117 of 2024 ``` 9 Kottarakara. Per contra, the same would not cause any serious hardship to the petitioner/wife, if the matters are considered before the Family Court, Pathanamthitta. This Court also notice that the present cause of action for filing these transfer petitions was the suo moto transfer of O.P. No.117/2023 pending before the Family Court, Kottarakkara to the Family Court, Punalur, pursuant to the establishment of a Family Court at Punalur. 5. Now, coming to the reason that the jurisdiction, insofar as, O.P.(G&W) are concerned, is the place where child ordinarily resides, this Court is the opinion that the same is the jurisdiction prescribed for the purpose of filing the Original Petition and the said jurisdiction will not affect the power of this Court under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure to transfer cases in appropriate cases for valid grounds. In the circumstances, the Tr.P.(C.) Nos.116 & 122/2024 will stand dismissed, whereas Tr.P.(C.) No. ``` Tr.P.(C.) Nos.122, 116 & 117 of 2024 ``` 10 117/2024 will stand allowed, whereby O.P. No.117/2023 pending before the Family Court, Punalur is directed to be transferred to the Family Court, Pathanamthitta to be considered along with two other proceedings by and between the parties, which are pending before the transferee Court. The transferor Court shall transmit the entire records to the transferee Court, forthwith. **Sd/-** **C. JAYACHANDRAN JUDGE** SKP/22-03 ``` Tr.P.(C.) Nos.122, 116 & 117 of 2024 ``` 11 ## `APPENDIX OF TR.P(C) 116/2024` ``` PETITIONER’S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE A1TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION IN OP (GW) NO. 22/2021, EXCLUDING THE DOCUMENTS ANNEXURE A2TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED 4-1-2023 TRP© NO. 269 OF 2022 AND 291 OF 2022 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT ``` ``` RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES:NIL ``` ``` Tr.P.(C.) Nos.122, 116 & 117 of 2024 ``` 12 ## `APPENDIX OF TR.P(C) 117/2024` ``` PETITIONER’S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE A1TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION IN OP NO. 371/2020 EXCLUDING THE DOCUMENTS ANNEXURE A2TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN TRP© NO. 269 OF 2022 AND 291 OF 2022 DATED 4-1-2023 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT ``` ``` RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES:NIL ``` ``` Tr.P.(C.) Nos.122, 116 & 117 of 2024 ``` 13 ## `APPENDIX OF TR.P(C) 122/2024` ``` PETITIONER’S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE A1TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION IN OP (HMA) NO. 530/2020 EXCLUDING THE DOCUMENTS ANNEXURE A2TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED 4-1-2023 IN TRP(C.) NO. 269 OF 2022 AND 291 OF 2022OF THIS HON'BLE COURT ``` ``` RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES:NIL ``` ## `TRUE COPY` ``` P.A. TO JUDGE ```