High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeTransfer allowed; Annexure-A transferred to Fam...

Khadeeja Abdul Karim v. JameenuDeen A

Case / Petition Number:TR.P(C) NO. 554 OF 2022

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

Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

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 NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Sumitha Sing v. Kumar Sanjay and another[2002 KHC 1889]PositiveCited 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]PositiveCited to reinforce the convenience principle in transfer decisions.
Vaishali Shridhar Jagtap v. Shridhar Vishwanath Jagtap[2016 KHC 6489]PositiveUsed to justify transfer by welfare of the family and children.
Santhini V. Vijaya Venkatesh[2017 (5) KHC 48]PositiveSupport for welfare-based transfer decisions in matrimonial disputes.
N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha[2022 (5) KHC 185]PositiveCited to corroborate the settled law on convenience of family (woman and children) in transfers.

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 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.

TR.P(C) NO. 554 OF 2022 1 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS** **THURSDAY, THE 9[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 20TH MAGHA, 1944 TR.P(C) NO. 554 OF 2022** **TO TRANSFER OP 2124/2022 OF FAMILY COURT,TRIVANDRUM** **PETITIONER/S:** KHADEEJA ABDUL KARIM AGED 35 YEARS D/O. ABDUL KARIM, KHADEEJA MANZIL, VADAKKEKARA P.O., N. PARRU, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 683 522. BY ADVS. RAJEE P MATHEWS L.PREETHA AMRUTHA P S VIJAY SANKAR V.H. SRUTHY UNNIKRISHNAN AISWARYA E J VETTIKOMPIL ## **RESPONDENT/S:** JAMEENUDEEN A AGED 38 YEARS THE MOBILE CARE/TMC INSTITUTE OF MOBILE TECHNOLOGY RNP BUILDING, VELLAYAMABLAM, SASTHAMANGALAM ROAD, TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT 695 010. BY ADVS. JOHN JOSEPH ( ROY) S.KRISHNANKUTTY(K/000792/2016) THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.02.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: TR.P(C) NO. 554 OF 2022 2 ## **ORDER** The transfer petition is filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, “Code”), seeking to transfer OP(G&W) No.2124/2022 (Annexure-A) from the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram to the Family Court, Ernakulam. 2. The petitioner’s case in brief, in the memorandum of transfer petition is that, she is the wife of the respondent. It is the 2[nd] marriage of the couple. They have two children born in their wedlock, who are now aged 5½ years and 3½ years. The marital relationship is strained. The respondent has filed Annexure-A for the custody of the children. The petitioner received notice in Annexure-A to produce the children before the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioner and the children are residing in North Paravur, Ernakulam, which is 226 kilometers away from their residence. It cause severe hardship and inconvenience to the petitioner to contest Annexure-A before the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. Hence, the transfer petition. TR.P(C) NO. 554 OF 2022 3 3. The respondent has filed a counter affidavit denying the allegations in the transfer petition. He had contended that the petitioner is living in Thiruvananthapuram as can be gathered from Annexure R1 mortgage deed, which shows the house has been taken for the period from 01.07.2021 to 30.06.2024. Likewise, Annexures R2 to R5 prove that the children are studying in the Nursery Schools in Thiruvananthapuram. Similarly Annexure R6 order passed by the Court of Sessions Judge VI, Thiruvananthapuram establishes the address of the petitioner in Thiruvananthapuram. Annexure R7 report filed by the Mannanthala Police before the Human Rights Commission also shows that the petitioner is a resident of Thiruvananthapuram. The transfer petition is without any merit and the same may be dismissed. 4. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit denying the allegations in the counter affidavit. She has categorically pleaded that she is a resident of North Paravur, Ernakulam District. According to her, the documents produced by the respondent all pertain to the period, while she was TR.P(C) NO. 554 OF 2022 4 residing in Thiruvananthapuram. Subsequent to their separation, the petitioner has filed OP No.3469/2022 (Annexure-C) and MC No.337/2022 (Annexure-D) before the Family Court, Ernakulam, against the respondent. The respondent is contesting the said proceedings before the Family Court, Ernakulam. Therefore, no inconvenience or hardship would be caused to the respondent in Annexure-A being transferred. 5. Heard; Smt.Rajee P. Mathews, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.John Joseph, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 6. On an analysis of the pleadings and materials on record, it is evident that Annexures C and D are now pending before the Family Court, Ernakulam. The respondent has not sought for transfer of the said proceedings. Moreover, even going by Annexure R6 order produced by the respondent, it is discernible that the petitioner's permanent residence is at North Paravur, Ernakulam District. 7. The respondent does not have a case that the TR.P(C) NO. 554 OF 2022 5 children are being maintained by him. Going by the allegations in Annexure-A, it is unambiguous that the children are in the custody of the respondent. 8. Annexure-A is filed for the custody of the children. Therefore, the children would have to be produced before the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram, to facilitate the interim custody and access of the children to the respondent. 9. The law with respect to transfer of proceedings, particularly matrimonial disputes, is no longer res-integra, in view of the categoric declaration of law by the 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 185]. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that it is the convenience of the woman and children that has TR.P(C) NO. 554 OF 2022 6 to be looked into, while ordering the transfer of a case from one Court to another. 10. 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, especially the fact that the Annexures C and D are already pending before the Family Court, Ernakulam, and that the petitioner and the two minor children are residing in Ernakulam, I am inclined to exercise the discretionary powers of this Court under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure and order the transfer of Annexure-A from the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram to the Family Court, North Paravur, so that the cases between the parties can be consolidated and jointly tried, which will save precious judicial time and avoid conflict of decisions. In the result, I allow the transfer petition as follows:- - (i) OP(G&W) No.2124/2022 is transferred from the Family Court, Thiruvananthapruam to the Family Court, North Paravur. - (ii) The parties would be at liberty to move the Family TR.P(C) NO. 554 OF 2022 7 Court, North Paravur 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, Thiruvananthapuram with instructions to forthwith transmit the records in Annexure-A to the Family Court, North Paravur. The Registry shall also forward a copy of this order to the Family Court, Ernakulam with instructions to forthwith transmit the records in Annexures C and D to the Family Court, North Paravur. - (iv) The Family Court, North Paravur shall, immediately on receipt of the records in Annexure-A, post the case along with Annexures C and D immediately after they are transferred to the said court. Sd/- ## **C.S.DIAS, JUDGE** rkc/09.02.23 TR.P(C) NO. 554 OF 2022 8 ## **APPENDIX OF TR.P(C) 554/2022** PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE O.P. (G & W), NO. 2124/2022 PENDING BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, TRIVANDRUM. RESPONDENT ANNEXURES ANNEXURE-R1 TRUE COPY OF THE THREE YEARS MORTGAGE AGREEMENT (OTTI) STARTING FROM 01.07.2021 TO 30.06.2024 DATED 01.07.2021 ANNEXURE-R2 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF SCHOOL FEE PAYMENT DATED 27.04.2022 ANNEXURE-R3 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF SCHOOL FEE PAYMENT DATED 07.10.2022 ANNEXURE-R4 TRUE COPY OF THE ADMISSION CARD DATED 28.04.2022 ANNEXURE-R5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE GURUKULAM NURSERY SCHOOL STATING THE PAYMENT OF ADMISSION AND MONTHLY FEES PAID BY THE RESPONDENT DATED 13.09.2022 PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE B A TRUE COPY OF RATION CARD RESPONDENT ANNEXURES ANNEXURE R6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CR. M.C.NO.1571 OF 2022 DATED 29-07-2022 OF THE HON'BLE DISTRICT -VI ,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, DISMISSING THE ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION ANNEXURE R7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT FILED BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER OF MANNANTHALA POLICE STATION BEFORE THE KERALA HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION DATED 03-10-2022 PETITIONER ANNEXURES TR.P(C) NO. 554 OF 2022 9 ANNEXURE C A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF THE OP 3469/2022 ANNEXURE D A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF THE MC 337/2022