Khadeeja Abdul Karim v. JameenuDeen A
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- C.S.Dias
- Judgment Date
- 2023-02-09
- Court Decision / Holding
- The transfer petition is allowed. The OP(G&W) No.2124/2022 is transferred from the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram to the Family Court, North Paravur. The parties may seek consolidation and joint trial of all related matters. The Registry is to transmit Annexure-A records to the North Paravur court and, similarly, Annexures C and D to North Paravur. North Paravur Family Court shall post the case forthwith along with Annexures C and D upon receipt. The decision reflects the welfare-driven norm established by cited Supreme Court decisions favoring convenience of the woman and children in matrimonial disputes and aims to consolidate proceedings to avoid conflicting judgments.
- Final Disposition
- Transfer allowed; Annexure-A transferred to Family Court, North Paravur; consolidation and joint trial of all related cases; records to be transmitted to North Paravur; North Paravur to post the transferred case along with Annexures C and D.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- Khadeeja Abdul Karim
Respondents
- JameenuDeen A
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • Rajee P Mathews
- • L. Preetha
- • Amrutha P S
- • Vijay Sankar
- • V.H. Sruthy Unnikrishnan
- • Aiswarya E J Vettikompil
Counsels for Respondents
- • John Joseph (RO)
- • S. Krishnankutty
Case Synopsis & Summary
This transfer petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 concerns Khadeeja Abdul Karim, wife of the respondent, seeking to transfer OP(G&W) 2124/2022 from the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram, to the Family Court, North Paravur, Ernakulam District. The couple’s second marriage and two minor children, aged 5½ years and 3½ years, are involved; the relationship is strained. The respondent has filed Annexure-A for custody before the Thiruvananthapuram court. The petitioner and the children reside in North Paravur, Ernakulam District, which makes long-distance travel burdensome for her to contest the custody matter there. The respondent contends that the petitioner is residing in Thiruvananthapuram, supported by documents including a mortgage deed and school admissions, with Annexures R1–R7; the petitioner claims those documents pertain to a prior period and that she currently resides in Ernakulam. Annexures C and D are pending before the Family Court, Ernakulam, and the petitioner argues consolidation will be efficient. The court notes settled law that the convenience of the woman and children governs transfer in matrimonial disputes, citing Sumitha Sing, Mona Aresh Goel, Vaishali Shridhar Jagtap, Santhini V. Vijaya Venkatesh, and N.C.V. Aishwarya. Applying these principles and the existing proceedings in Ernakulam, the court allows transfer to North Paravur for consolidation and joint trial, with records to be transmitted to the appropriate court.
Provisions of Law Cited
Legal Doctrines & Maxims
- Convenience of the woman and children in transfer of matrimonial disputes; consolidation of proceedings to avoid conflicting decisions
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioner contends residence at North Paravur, Ernakulam District, making it materially burdensome to pursue custody proceedings at Thiruvananthapuram. Annexures C and D are already pending in Ernakulam and consolidation will avoid duplicative litigation and conflicting orders. The respondent’s assertions about the petitioner’s residence are based on documents relating to a prior period; after separation, the petitioner relocated. The Court should exercise its discretion under Section 24 CPC to transfer the case to the Family Court at North Paravur, where custody and related proceedings are already proceeding or can be consolidated for efficient disposal, reducing hardship and travel time for the petitioner and children. Citing Supreme Court rulings, the petitioner emphasizes the welfare of the children and the convenience of the family unit as the governing standard.
Contentions of Respondents
The respondent argues that the petitioner’s residence is in Thiruvananthapuram as evidenced by documents (R1–R7) and a pending address-based order; transferring the case would interrupt custody proceedings and create fragmentation. He asserts that Annexures R6 and R7 show the petitioner’s continued presence in Thiruvananthapuram and that the two children are primarily under his custody while schooling is in Thiruvananthapuram. The respondent contends that the transfer would not serve the interests of the children and that the current forum is appropriate, particularly given pending actions in Ernakulam. He relies on the factual record to oppose transfer and consolidation.
Cited Precedents (5)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sumitha Sing v. Kumar Sanjay and another | [2002 KHC 1889] | Positive | Cited to support the principle that transfer in matrimonial disputes should be guided by the convenience of the woman and children. |
| Mona Aresh Goel v. Aresh Satya Goel | [2000 KHC 1835] | Positive | Cited to reinforce the convenience principle in transfer decisions. |
| Vaishali Shridhar Jagtap v. Shridhar Vishwanath Jagtap | [2016 KHC 6489] | Positive | Used to justify transfer by welfare of the family and children. |
| Santhini V. Vijaya Venkatesh | [2017 (5) KHC 48] | Positive | Support for welfare-based transfer decisions in matrimonial disputes. |
| N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha | [2022 (5) KHC 185] | Positive | Cited to corroborate the settled law on convenience of family (woman and children) in transfers. |
Diagnostic Tool
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 Khadeeja Abdul Karim v. JameenuDeen A and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.