High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeTransfer petitions allowed; OP 243/2022 and OP ...

Jyothis Madhu v. Maneesh

Case / Petition Number:TR.P(C) NO. 530 OF 2022; TR.P(C) NO. 523 OF 2022

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • C.S. Dias
Judgment Date
2022-11-17
Court Decision / Holding
The court allowed the transfers: (i) TR.P(C) No.530 of 2022 is allowed by transferring OP 243 of 2022 from the Family Court, Kottarakkara, to the Family Court, Kollam. (ii) TR.P(C) No.523 of 2022 is allowed by transferring OP 68 of 2022 from the Family Court, Kottarakkara, to the Family Court, Kollam. (iii) The parties may seek consolidation and joint trial in Kollam. (iv) The Registry shall transmit the records to Kollam, and the Family Court, Kollam shall post the cases and issue notices. (v) Directions issued for immediate transmission of records. The decision was grounded on Section 24 CPC and the principle of prioritizing the convenience of the woman and child, along with the aim of avoiding conflicting outcomes and multiplicity of proceedings.
Final Disposition
Transfer petitions allowed; OP 243/2022 and OP 68/2022 are transferred to the Family Court, Kollam, with liberty to consolidate and jointly try; records to be transmitted; notices to be issued; post the cases for hearing in Kollam; aim to save judicial time and avoid conflicting decisions.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Jyothis Madhu

Respondents

  • Maneesh

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • K. Siju
  • • S. Abhilash
  • • T. S. Sreekutty
  • • Anjana Kannath

Counsels for Respondents

  • • K. V. Anil Kumar
  • • Swapna Vijayan
  • • Mohanan M.K.
  • • Radhika S.ANIL

Case Synopsis & Summary

These transfer petitions, TR.P(C) Nos. 530/2022 and 523/2022, seek to transfer OP 243/2022 and OP 68/2022 from the Family Court, Kottarakkara, to the Family Court, Kollam. Jyothis Madhu, the petitioner-wife, states that the marriage is strained and she and the child reside in Kollam; the respondent Maneesh, who faces proceedings in Kollam (OP 790/2018 and MC 203/2018), contests before the Family Court, Kollam. The petitioner argues that transferring the two cases to Kollam would consolidate them with existing proceedings, reduce hardship, and be convenient for both sides. The respondent is described as contesting in the two Kollam proceedings, and the petition cites the need to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to ensure efficiency. The court relied on a catena of Supreme Court decisions, including Sumitha Sing v. Kumar Sanjay and Mona Aresh Goel v. Aresh Satya Goel, Vaishali Shridhar Jagtap v. Shridhar Vishwanath Jagtap, Santhini V. Vijaya Venkatesh, N.C.V. Aiswarya v. A.S. Sharavana Karthik Sha, and Valsal Nisha v. Rajesh Soman Nair, to hold that convenience of the woman and child and avoiding multiple proceedings should guide transfer orders. Holding that OP 790/2018 and MC 203/2018 are already pending at Kollam, the court exercised its discretionary power under Section 24 CPC and allowed the transfers to Kollam, with liberty to consolidate and jointly try, and directed transmission of records and notices to the parties. The order emphasizes efficiency and consistency in adjudication.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Convenience of the woman and child to be given preference in transfer of matrimonial matters
  • Avoidance of multiplicity of proceedings and time-saving through consolidation and joint trial

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner-wife argues that transferring OP 243/2022 and OP 68/2022 from the Family Court at Kottarakkara to the Family Court at Kollam would consolidate the maters with two pending proceedings (OP 790/2018 and MC 203/2018) in Kollam, reduce travel hardship, and save judicial time by avoiding multiplicity of proceedings, ultimately ensuring a smoother, unified adjudication in the best interests of the wife and child.

Cited Precedents (6)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Sumitha Sing v. Kumar Sanjay and another(2001) 10 SCC 41PositiveSupports prioritizing convenience of the wife and child in transfer decisions and the court's discretionary power under CPC 24.
Mona Aresh Goel v. Aresh Satya Goel(2000) 9 SCC 255PositiveAffirms transfer to where convenience and consolidated proceedings can be achieved.
Vaishali Shridhar Jagtap v. Shridhar Vishwanath JagtapAIR 2016 SC 3584PositiveFurther authority on prioritizing the welfare of the wife and child in matrimonial transfers.
Santhini V. Vijaya Venkatesh(2017) 4 KLT 415 (SC)PositivePrinciple supporting welfare-centric transfer decisions and avoidance of multiplicity.
N.C.V. Aiswarya v. A.S. Sharavana Karthik Sha(2022) 5 KHC 185PositiveRecently reiterates preference for convenient and efficient adjudication in matrimonial disputes.
Valsal Nisha v. Rajesh Soman Nair(2020) 8 KLR 475PositiveSupports consolidation and efficient management of related proceedings.

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 Jyothis Madhu v. Maneesh 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) NOS. 530/2022 & 523/2022 ``` ``` 1 ``` ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS THURSDAY, THE 17[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 26TH KARTHIKA, ``` ## **`1944`** ## **`TR.P(C) NO. 530 OF 2022`** ## **`(OPHMA 243/2022 OF FAMILY COURT, KOTTARAKKARA)`** ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` JYOTHIS MADHU AGED 33 YEARS D/O. MADHUSOODANAN, JYOTHIS BHAVAN, POOTHAKULAM P.O., POOTHAKULAM VILLAGE, KOLLAM-691302. BY ADVS. K.SIJU S.ABHILASH T.S.SREEKUTTY ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` MANEESH S/O. MANGALANANDAN, AGED 39 YEARS, SREEHARI, PATTAZHI VILLAGE, PANTHAPLAVU P.O., KOLLAM- 691552. ``` ``` BY ADVS. K.V.ANIL KUMAR SWAPNA VIJAYAN(K/001165/2006) MOHANAN M.K.(K/000762/2018) RADHIKA S.ANIL(K/000183/2019) ``` ``` THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 17.11.2022, ALONG WITH Tr.P(C).523/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` TR.P(C) NOS. 530/2022 & 523/2022 ``` ``` 2 ``` ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS ``` ``` THURSDAY, THE 17[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 26TH KARTHIKA, ``` ## **`1944`** ## **`TR.P(C) NO. 523 OF 2022`** ## **`(OPGW 68/2022 OF FAMILY COURT, KOTTARAKKARA)`** ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` JYOTHIS MADHU, AGED 33 YEARS D/O.MADHUSOODANAN, JYOTHIS BHAVAN, POOTHAKULAM P.O, POOTHAKULAM VILLAGE, KOLLAM-691302. BY ADVS. K.SIJU S.ABHILASH ANJANA KANNATH T.S.SREEKUTTY ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` MANEESH, S/O MANGALANANDAN, AGED 39 YEARS, 'SREEHARI', PATTAZHI VILLAGE, PANTHAPLAVU P.O, KOLLAM-691552. BY ADVS. K.V.ANIL KUMAR SWAPNA VIJAYAN(K/001165/2006) MOHANAN M.K.(K/000762/2018) RADHIKA S.ANIL(K/000183/2019) ``` ``` THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 17.11.2022, ALONG WITH Tr.P(C).530/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` TR.P(C) NOS. 530/2022 & 523/2022 ``` ``` 3 ``` ## **COMMON ORDER** As the transfer petitions are between the same parties, they are being disposed of by this common order. The petitioner wife has filed the transfer petitions to transfer OP. Nos.243 of 2022 and 68 of 2022 from the Family Court, Kottarakkara to the Family Court, Kollam. 2. The common case of the petitioner, in brief, in the two transfer petitions, is that, she is the wife of the respondent. They have a child born in the wedlock. The marital relationship is strained. The petitioner and the child are residing in her parental home in Kollam district. The respondent has filed OP. Nos.243 of 2022 and 68 of 2022 against the petitioner before the Family Court, Kottarakkara. The petitioner has filed OP. 790 of 2018 and MC.203 of 2018 before the Family Court, Kollam against the respondent. The respondent is ``` TR.P(C) NOS. 530/2022 & 523/2022 ``` ``` 4 ``` contesting the above two proceedings before the Family Court, Kollam. It is during the pendency of the above proceedings that the respondent has filed OP Nos.243 of 2022 and 68 of 2022 before the Family Court, Kottarakkara. It will cause severe difficulty and hardship to the petitioner to contest the above two cases before the Family Court, Kottarakkara. Moreover, if the cases are transferred, the same can be consolidated and jointly tried, which will be convenient to both sides. Hence, the transfer petitions. 3. Heard Smt. Anjana Kannath, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.K.V.Anilkumar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent in the two transfer petitions. 4. 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 ``` TR.P(C) NOS. 530/2022 & 523/2022 ``` ## **`5`** 255], _**Vaishali 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. 5. On a consideration of the pleadings and materials on record, the totality of the facts and circumstances of the cases, the law laid down in the above cited decisions, particularly the fact that OP.790 of 2018 and MC.203 of 2018 are already pending before the Family Court, Kollam and the respondent is contesting the proceedings before the said Court, 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. 243 of 2022 and 68 of 2022 to the Family Court, ``` TR.P(C) NOS. 530/2022 & 523/2022 ``` ``` 6 ``` Kollam, so that the cases can be consolidated and jointly tried which will save precious judicial time and avoid conflict of decision and multiplicity of proceedings. In the result, I allow the transfer petitions as follows: - (i) Tr.P(C) No.530 of 2022 is allowed by ordering the transfer of O.P. 243 of 2022 from the Family Court, Kottarakkara to the Family Court, Kollam. - (ii) Tr.P(C) No.523 of 2022 is allowed by ordering the transfer of O.P. 68 of 2022 from the Family Court, Kottarakkara to the Family Court, Kollam. - (iii) The parties will be at liberty to move the Family Court, Kollam 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, ``` TR.P(C) NOS. 530/2022 & 523/2022 ``` ## **`7`** Kottarakkara with instructions forthwith to transmit the records in OP. Nos.243 of 2022 and 68 of 2022 to the Family Court, Kollam. - (v) The Family Court, Kollam shall, immediately on receipt of the records in the above two cases, post the cases along with MC No.203 of 2018 and issue notice to the parties for their appearance. Sd/- ## **C.S.DIAS, JUDGE** okb/16.11.22 //True copy// P.S. to Judge ``` TR.P(C) NOS. 530/2022 & 523/2022 ``` ## **`8`** ## **`APPENDIX OF TR.P(C) 523/2022`** ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure 1THE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 28.05.2022 RECEIVED FROM THE FAMILY COURT, KOTTARAKKARA IN OP(G&W)NO.68/2022. Annexure 2THE COPY OF PETITION IN OP(G&W)NO.68/2022 DATED 13.4.2022 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT. ``` ``` TR.P(C) NOS. 530/2022 & 523/2022 ``` ## **`9`** ## **`APPENDIX OF TR.P(C) 530/2022`** ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure 1THE COPY OF NOTICE IN OP(HMA) NO.243/2022 DATED 12.4.2022 RECEIVED FROM FAMILY COURT, KOTTARAKKARA. Annexure 2THE COPY OF PETITION IN OP(HMA) NO.243/2022 DATED 6.4.2022 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT FOR THE FAMILY COURT, KOTTARAKKARA. ```