Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeThe transfer petitions are allowed; the O.P.145...

Jeffy Joseph v. Melvin Sheen Mathew

Case / Petition Number:TR.P(C) Nos.298/2022 & 300/2022

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • C.S. Dias
Judgment Date
2022-11-09
Court Decision / Holding
Transfer petitions allowed. (i) Tr.P(C) 298/2022: transfer O.P.145/2022 from Family Court Kalpetta to Family Court Kasaragod. (ii) Tr.P(C) 300/2022: transfer O.P.144/2022 from Family Court Kalpetta to Family Court Kasaragod. (iii) Parties may seek consolidation and joint trial in Kasaragod. (iv) Respondent may seek dispensation of personal appearance before Kasaragod. (v) Registry to transmit records to Kasaragod and Kasaragod to post the cases along with O.P.389/2022. (vi) Kasaragod to proceed with the consolidated matters.
Final Disposition
The transfer petitions are allowed; the O.P.145/2022 and O.P.144/2022 are to be transferred from Kalpetta to Kasaragod; parties may seek consolidation and joint trial; the respondent may seek dispensation of personal appearance; records to be transmitted to Kasaragod; Kasaragod to post these cases with O.P.389/2022.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Jeffy Joseph

Respondents

  • Melvin Sheen Mathew

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Kodoth Sreedharan

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Vivek Venugopal

Case Synopsis & Summary

The Kerala High Court, exercising its discretionary power under Section 24 CPC, decides two transfer petitions arising from marital discord between Jeffy Joseph (wife) and Melvin Sheen Mathew (husband). The wife seeks to transfer O.P.145/2022 (custody of a three-year-old child) and O.P.144/2022 (restitution of conjugal rights) from the Family Court, Kalpetta, to the Family Court, Kasaragod, so that all related proceedings can be consolidated and tried in one forum. The common case is that the couple are estranged, and they and their child reside in Kasaragod; the husband contests, arguing that his elderly parents require care and that traveling from Wayanad to Kasaragod would be burdensome; he has not sought transfer of his own cases. The court cites a catena of Supreme Court decisions emphasizing that the convenience of the wife and child should be given weight in transfer decisions, and that consolidation avoids multiplicity of proceedings and conflicting judgments. It notes the child’s ongoing custody with the wife and the substantial distance (about 200 km) to Kalpetta, which would prejudice the child if the case were heard there. The court transfers both petitions to Kasaragod for consolidated adjudication, with directions for records transmission and for possible consolidation and dispensation of personal appearance if needed.

Provisions of Law Cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 24Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Convenience of the wife and child to be given due weightage in transfer decisions
  • Consolidation and joint trial of all proceedings between the parties to save judicial time and avoid multiplicity of proceedings
  • Hardship and practical convenience influence forum selection in family-law transfers

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner-wife contends that ongoing marital discord and the welfare of their three-year-old child necessitate transferring O.P.145/2022 (custody) and O.P.144/2022 (restitution of conjugal rights) from Kalpetta to Kasaragod so that all related proceedings can be consolidated and heard in a single forum; the child presently resides with the wife at Kasaragod, and the wife has already initiated O.P.389/2022 (divorce) and M.C.23/2022 (Domestic Violence) in Kasaragod. The wife relies on Supreme Court precedents to emphasize that the convenience of the wife and child should weigh in transfer decisions and that consolidating proceedings avoids multiplicity and conflicting judgments; the discretion under Section 24 CPC should be exercised to effectuate this.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondent argues against transfer citing his elderly and infirm parents and absence of someone to care for them, with two sisters abroad; he asserts substantial hardship and travel burden to Kasaragod from Wayanad, and thus requests dismissal of the petitions. He notes he has not sought transfer of his own proceedings and that forcing the child’s production in Kalpetta would be burdensome; he urges the court to consider the hardship and preserve the current forum.

Cited Precedents (6)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Sumitha Sing V. Kumar Sanjay and another[(2001)10] SCC 41PositiveCited as supportive of giving weightage to the convenience of the wife and child in transfer decisions.
Mona Aresh Goel V. Aresh Satya Goel[(2000) 9 SCC 255]PositiveCited for the principle that the welfare of the wife and child informs transfer rulings.
Vaishali Shridhar Jagtap V. Shridhar Vishwanath Jagtap[AIR 2016 SC 3584]PositiveCited to support preference given to the convenience of the wife and child.
Santhini V.2017 (4) KLT 415 (SC)PositiveCited as authority on welfare-centric transfer considerations.
N.C.V. Aiswarya v. A.S. Sharavana Karthik Sha[2022 (5) KHC 185]PositiveCited as authority recognizing convenience and welfare principles in transfers.
Valsal Nisha v. Rajesh Soman Nair[2020(8) KLR 475]PositiveCited for welfare and convenience principles in forum-transfer decisions.

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 Jeffy Joseph v. Melvin Sheen Mathew 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 9[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 18TH KARTHIKA, 1944 ``` ## `TR.P(C) NO. 298 OF 2022` ``` IN OP 145/2022 OF FAMILY COURT, KALPETTA ``` ## `PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:` ``` JEFFY JOSEPH, AGED 32 YEARS D/O.BABY THOMAS, RESIDING AT GRACE HOME, VALLIKKADAVU, P.O.VALLIKKADAVU, MALOTH VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. ``` ``` BY ADV KODOTH SREEDHARAN ``` ## `RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:` ``` MELVIN SHEEN MATHEW, AGED 36 YEARS S/O.T.M.MATHEW, RESIDING AT THURUVELIKKUNNEL HOUSE, MELE ARRAPPATTA, MEPPADI P.O., MUPPAINAD VILLAGE, WAYANAD DISTRICT. ``` ``` BY ADV VIVEK VENUGOPAL ``` ``` THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.11.2022, ALONG WITH Tr.P(C).300/2022,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` Tr.P.(C)Nos.298 & 300/2022 ``` ``` -:2:- ``` ## `IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM` ``` PRESENT ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS ``` ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 9[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 18TH KARTHIKA, 1944 ``` ## `TR.P(C) NO. 300 OF 2022` ``` IN OP 144/2022 OF FAMILY COURT, KALPETTA ``` ## `PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:` ``` JEFFY JOSEPH AGED 32 YEARS D/O.BABY THOMAS, R/AT GRACE HOME, VALLIKKADAVU, P.O.VALLIKKADAVU, MALOTH VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. ``` ``` BY ADV KODOTH SREEDHARAN ``` ## `RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:` ``` MELVIN SHEEN MATHEW AGED 36 YEARS S/O.T.M.MATHEW, R/AT THURUVELIKKUNNEL HOUSE, ARRAPPATTA, MEPPADI P.O., MUPPAINAD VILLAGE, WAYANAD DISTRICT. ``` ``` BY ADV VIVEK VENUGOPAL ``` ``` THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.11.2022, ALONG WITH Tr.P(C).298/2022 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` Tr.P.(C)Nos.298 & 300/2022 ``` ``` -:3:- ``` Dated this the 9[th] day of November, 2022 ## **C O M M O N O R D E R** As the transfer petitions arise out of the marital discord between Jeffy Joseph (petitioner - wife) and Melvin Sheen Mathew (respondent - husband), they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The transfer petitions are filed by the wife to transfer O.P.Nos.145 & 144/2022 filed by the respondent/husband from the Family Court, Kalpetta to the Family Court, Kasaragod. 3. The common case of the petitioner in the transfer petition is that, she is the wife of the respondent. They have a child born in the wedlock. Their marital relationship is strained. The petitioner and the child are residing in the petitioner’s parental home in Kasaragod. The respondent has filed ``` Tr.P.(C)Nos.298 & 300/2022 ``` ``` -:4:- ``` O.P.No.145/2022, seeking for the permanent custody of the child and O.P.No.144/2022, for a decree of restitution of conjugal rights. The petitioner has filed M.C.No.23/2022 against the respondent, before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kasaragod, under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and O.P.No.389/2022 before the Family Court, Kasaragod, for a decree of divorce. The respondent is contesting the above two cases before the courts at Kasaragod. Therefore, no inconvenience would be caused to him, in O.P.Nos.145 & 144/2022 being transferred. Hence, the transfer petitions. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent has filed a statement of objection in the transfer petitions, denying the allegations in the transfer petitions. It is contended that the parents of the respondent are old and infirm. The respondent has ``` Tr.P.(C)Nos.298 & 300/2022 ``` ``` -:5:- ``` two sisters, who are settled abroad. There is no person to take care of his parents. Hence, it would be difficult for the respondent to travel all the way from Wayanad to Kasaragod to contest the above proceedings, if they are transferred. Hence, the transfer petitions may be dismissed. 5. Heard; Sri. Kodoth Sreedharan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Vivek Venugopal, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 6. The common point is whether the transfer petitions are to be allowed?. 7. 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 Shridhar Jagtap V. Shridhar Vishwanath Jagtap** [AIR 2016 SC 3584], **Santhini V.** ``` Tr.P.(C)Nos.298 & 300/2022 ``` ``` -:6:- ``` **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 due preference and weightage, while ordering the transfer of a case from one Court to another. 8. Undisputedly, the couple has a three year old child. The child is in the permanent custody of the petitioner/wife. The petitioner has already instituted O.P.No.389/2022 before the Family Court, Kasaragod and M.C.No.23/2022 before the jurisdictional Magistrate against the respondent. The respondent is contesting the above two proceedings before the courts at Kasaragod. The respondent has not sought for the transfer of the above proceedings. Moreover, as O.P.No.145/2022 pertains to the custody of the child, necessarily, the child would have to be produced before ``` Tr.P.(C)Nos.298 & 300/2022 ``` ``` -:7:- ``` the Family Court. As the distance between Kasaragod and Wayanad is approximately 200 kms. on one side, it would cause severe hardship and prejudice to the child, if the child is to be produced before the Family Court, Kalpetta. 9. In the above legal and factual matrix, I am inclined to exercise the discretionary powers of this Court under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908, and order the transfer of O.P.Nos.145 & 144/2022 from the Family Court, Kalpetta to the Family Court, Kasaragod, so that all cases between the parties can be consolidated and jointly tried by the same court, which would save precious judicial time and avoid conflict of decisions and multiplicity of proceedings. In the result, (i) Tr.P.(C)No.298/2022 is allowed, by ordering the transfer of O.P.No.145/2022 from the ``` Tr.P.(C)Nos.298 & 300/2022 ``` ``` -:8:- ``` Family Court, Kalpetta to the Family Court, Kasaragod. - (ii) Tr.P.(C)No.300/2022 is allowed, by ordering the transfer of O.P.No.144/2022 from the Family Court, Kalpetta to the Family Court, Kasaragod. - (iii) The parties would be at liberty to move the Family Court, Kasaragod and seek for the consolidation and joint trial of all the cases between them. - (iv) The respondent would be at liberty to move the Family Court, Kasaragod, and seek for dispensation of his personal appearance before the Family Court. - (v) The Registry shall forward a copy of the order to the Family Court, Kalpetta with instructions to transmit the records in O.P.Nos.145 & 144/2022 to the Family Court, Kasaragod. - (vi) The Family Court, Kasaragod, shall, ``` Tr.P.(C)Nos.298 & 300/2022 ``` ``` -:9:- ``` immediately on receipt of the records in the above numbered cases, post the case along with O.P.No.389/2022. Sd/- ## **C.S.DIAS,JUDGE** DST/09.11.22 //True copy/ P.A.To Judge ``` Tr.P.(C)Nos.298 & 300/2022 ``` ``` -:10:- ``` ## `APPENDIX OF TR.P(C) 298/2022` ``` RESPONDENT ANNEXURES ANNEXURE-ATRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE CLINICAL SUMMARY DATED 21.04.2021 ISSUED BY THE FATIMA MATA MISSION HOSPITAL, WAYANAD ANNEXURE-BTRUE PHOTOCOPY OF ONE OF THE RECENT MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DATED 18.07.2022 ISSUED BY THE W.M.O KUWAIT CLINIC ``` ``` RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS: NIL ``` ``` Tr.P.(C)Nos.298 & 300/2022 ``` ``` -:11:- ``` ## `APPENDIX OF TR.P(C) 300/2022` ``` RESPONDENT ANNEXURES ANNEXURE-ATRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE CLINICAL SUMMARY DATED 21.04.2021 ISSUED BY THE FATIMA MATA MISSION HOSPITAL, WAYANAD ``` ``` ANNEXURE-BTRUE PHOTOCOPY OF ONE OF THE RECENT MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DATED 18.07.2022 ISSUED BY THE W.M.O KUWAIT CLINIC ``` ``` RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS: NIL ```