High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2022-08-05Transfer petitions allowed; cases transferred f...

Litha Mariam Varghese v. Santosh Thomas and others

Case / Petition Number:TR.P.(C) Nos. 309, 313 & 314/2022

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C. S. Dias
Judgment Date: 2022-08-05
Court Decision / Holding: The transfer petitions are allowed. O.P.629/2019, O.P.(Div) Nos.630/2019 and 639/2019 are withdrawn from the Family Court, Pala, and transferred to the Family Court, Thiruvalla. The parties may move the Thiruvalla court for consolidation and joint trial of the proceedings. The Registry shall transmit the records to Thiruvalla. The respondents may seek dispensation of personal appearance and may use video conferencing. The Thiruvalla Court shall issue notices to the parties upon receipt of records.
Final Disposition: Transfer petitions allowed; cases transferred from Family Court, Pala to Family Court, Thiruvalla for consolidation and joint trial; notices to be issued; video conferencing and dispensation of personal appearance allowed; records to be transmitted to Thiruvalla.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Litha Mariam Varghese

Respondents

Santosh Thomas
Bobby Mathew
Thomas (father of first respondent)
Saly Thomas (mother of first respondent)

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• K. N. Radhakrishnan (Thiruvalla)

Counsels for Respondents

• S. K. Shyju

Case Synopsis & Summary

These transfer petitions, Tr.P.(C) Nos. 309, 313 and 314 of 2022, pertain to matrimonial proceedings between Litha Mariam Varghese (wife) and Santosh Thomas (husband) and his parents. The petitioner seeks to transfer O.P. Nos. 629/2019 (money and ancillary relief) and O.P.(Div) Nos. 639/2019 (divorce) and 630/2019 (divorce) from the Family Court, Pala to the Family Court, Thiruvalla, so that related proceedings may be consolidated and tried jointly. The husband is employed abroad (Bahrain) and the petitioner resides at Mallappally, Pathanamthitta; she argues that these practical factors, along with the absence of a chaperone for traveling to Pala, justify transfer. The respondents’ counsel represented them in the petitions. The court recites settled law from Supreme Court decisions (Sumitha Sing; Mona Aresh Goel; Vaishali Shridhar Jagtap; Santhini v. Vijaya; Venkatesh; Valsal Nisha) establishing that the convenience of the wife and children is a decisive factor in transfer of matrimonial disputes and that Section 24 CPC empowers the court to transfer to avoid conflicting judgments and to facilitate consolidation. After considering pleadings and circumstances, the High Court exercises its discretion in favour of transfer to Thiruvalla, allowing consolidation and granting facilities such as video conferencing and dispensation of personal appearances. The Registry is instructed to transmit records to Thiruvalla.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Convenience of the wife and children as the decisive criterion in transfer of matrimonial disputes (as elaborated by Supreme Court decisions cited)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that the three connected matrimonial proceedings be consolidated and relocated to the Family Court, Thiruvalla, due to the petitioner’s residence in Mallappally, Pathanamthitta, and the husband’s employment abroad, making travel to Pala burdensome and increasing the risk of conflicting judgments. She argues that consolidation would save judicial time and ensure coherent adjudication, and that the court should exercise its discretion under Section 24 CPC to transfer. The absence of a chaperone and practical difficulties in contesting multiple suits further justify transfer. The aim is to secure convenient, speedy, and consolidated resolution, protecting the wife’s and potential children’s interests.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents’ arguments are not exhaustively detailed in the order; their counsel appears for the respondents and contends the maintenance of proceedings in Pala could be preferable, emphasizing jurisdictional and logistical considerations and potential disruption caused by moving proceedings. The court, however, primarily relies on settled law prioritising the convenience of the wife and children and the overall efficiency of proceedings, declining to accept objections to transfer and ultimately allowing the transfers.

Cited Precedents (6)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Sumitha Sing v. Kumar Sanjay and another	(2001) 10 SCC 41	Positive	Cited for the principle that convenience of the wife and children governs transfer of matrimonial disputes.
Mona Aresh Goel v. Aresh Satya Goel	(2000) 9 SCC 255	Positive	Supports transfer on grounds of convenience in matrimonial matters.
Vaishali Shridhar Jagtap v. Shridhar Vishwanath Jagtap	AIR 2016 SC 3584	Positive	Reiterates importance of convenience in transfer decisions.
Santhini v. Vijaya	—	Positive	Referenced for the jurisprudence on transfer of matrimonial disputes.
Venkatesh	2017 (4) KLT 415 (SC)	Positive	SC decision cited on convenience and relocation of matrimonial proceedings.
Valsal Nisha v. Rajesh Soman Nair	2020(8) KLR 475	Positive	SC/High Court authority cited in transfer context.

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 Litha Mariam Varghese v. Santosh Thomas and others 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 ``` ``` FRIDAY, THE 5[TH] DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 14TH SRAVANA, 1944 ``` ## `TR.P(C) NO. 309 OF 2022` ``` IN OPDIV 639/2019 OF FAMILY COURT, PALA ``` ## `PETITIONER/FIRST RESPONDENT:` ``` LITHA MARIAM VARGHESE, AGED 35 YEARS, LITHA MARIAM VARGHESE, D/O LATE T.M. VARGHESE, THAKIDIYIL HOUSE, VALAKUZHAY P.O., VENNIKULAM KARA, THELLIYOOR VILLAGE, MALLAPPALLY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT., PIN – 689544 ``` ``` BY ADV K.N.RADHAKRISHNAN(THIRUVALLA) ``` ## `RESPONDENTS/ PETITIONER & 2ND RESPONDENT:` ``` 1SANTHOSH THOMAS, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O C.J. THOMAS, CIRATTOLIPARAMPIL HOUSE, PULICKAL KAVALA P.O., VAZHOOR VILLAGE, CHNAGANACHERRY TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN – 686515 2BOBBY MATHEW, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O P.M. MATHEW, PARAPPALLIL HOUSE, KOTHALA P.O., PAMPADY VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. PIN-686502, PIN - 686502 ``` ``` THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.08.2022, ALONG WITH TR.P.(C)NOS.313/2022 & 314, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` Tr.P.(C)Nos.309, 313 & 314/2022 ``` ``` -:2:- ``` ## `IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM` ## `PRESENT` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS FRIDAY, THE 5[TH] DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 14TH SRAVANA, 1944 ``` ``` TR.P(C) NO. 313 OF 2022 ``` ``` IN OP NO.629/2019 OF FAMILY COURT, PALA ``` ``` PETITIONER/PETITIONER: ``` ``` LITHA MARIAM VARGHESE, AGED 35 YEARS, LITHA MARIAM VARGHESE, D/O LATE T.M. VARGHESE, THAKIDIYIL HOUSE, VALAKUZHAY P.O., VENNIKULAM KARA, THELLIYOOR VILLAGE, MALLAPPALLY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN – 689544 ``` ``` BY ADV K.N.RADHAKRISHNAN(THIRUVALLA) ``` ## `RESPONDENT/S:` ``` 1SANTHOSH THOMAS AGED 38 YEARS S/O C.J. THOMAS, CIRATTOLIPARAMPIL HOUSE, PULICKAL KAVALAP.O., VAZHOOR VILLAGE, CHNAGANACHERRY TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN – 686515 ``` ``` 2THOMAS, (FATHER OF FIRST RESPONDENT) AGED 70 YEARS, CIRATTOLIPARAMPIL HOUSE, PULICKAL KAVALAP.O., VAZHOOR VILLAGE, CHNAGANACHERRY TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT PIN- 686515, PIN – 686515 ``` ``` 3SALY THOMAS (MOTHER OF FIRST RESPONDENT) AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, CIRATTOLIPARAMPIL HOUSE, ``` ``` Tr.P.(C)Nos.309, 313 & 314/2022 ``` ``` -:3:- ``` ``` PULICKAL KAVALAP.O., VAZHOOR VILLAGE, CHNAGANACHERRY TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT PIN- 686515, PIN – 686515 ``` ``` THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.08.2022, ALONG WITH TR.P.(C)NOS.309/2022 & 314, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` Tr.P.(C)Nos.309, 313 & 314/2022 ``` ``` -:4:- ``` ## `IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM` ## `PRESENT` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS ``` ``` FRIDAY, THE 5[TH] DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 14TH SRAVANA, 1944 ``` ## `TR.P(C) NO. 314 OF 2022` ``` IN OPDIV 630/2019 OF FAMILY COURT, PALA ``` ``` PETITIONER/PETITIONER: ``` ``` LITHA MARIAM VARGHESE, AGED 35 YEARS, D/O LATE T.M. VARGHESE, THAKIDIYIL HOUSE, VALAKUZHAY P.O., VENNIKULAM KARA, THELLIYOOR VILLAGE, MALLAPPALLY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT., PIN – 689544 ``` ``` BY ADV K.N.RADHAKRISHNAN(THIRUVALLA) ``` ## `RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:` ``` SANTHOSH THOMAS, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O C.J. THOMAS, CIRATTOLIPARAMPIL HOUSE, PULICKAL KAVALA P.O., VAZHOOR VILLAGE, CHNAGANACHERRY TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN – 686515 ``` ``` THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.08.2022, ALONG WITH TR.P.(C)NOS.309/2022 & 313, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` Tr.P.(C)Nos.309, 313 & 314/2022 ``` ``` -:5:- ``` Dated this the 5[th] day of August,2022 ## **C O M M O N O R D E R** As these transfer petitions pertain to the disputes arising out of the marriage between ‘Litha Mariam Varghese’(wife) and ‘Santhosh Mathew’(husband), they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Tr.P.(C)No.309/2022 is filed by the wife against the husband and a co-respondent, to transfer O.P.(Div)No.639/2019 from the Family Court, Pala to the Family Court, Thiruvalla; Tr.P.(C)No.313/2022 is filed by the wife against the husband and his parents, to transfer O.P.No.629/2019 from and to the same Courts and Tr.P(C)No.314/2022 is filed by the wife against the husband, to transfer O.P.(Div)No.630/2019 from and to the same Courts. The parties are, for the sake of convenience, referred to as per the status in Tr.P. ``` Tr.P.(C)Nos.309, 313 & 314/2022 ``` ``` -:6:- ``` (C)No.313/2022 which is treated as the leading case. 3. The common case of the wife is that, she is the wife of the first respondent. She has filed O.P.No.629/2019 against the husband and his parents before the Family Court, Pala, for a decree for return of money and other ancillary reliefs. She has also filed O.P.(Div)No.639/2019 against the first respondent before the same court, for a decree of divorce. The first respondent has filed O.P.(Div) No.630/2019 before the same court against the petitioner and a co-respondent for a decree of divorce. The petitioner was constrained to file O.P.Nos.629 & 639/2019 before the Family Court, Pala, as it is the court of competent jurisdiction, as provided under the concerned statutes. The first respondent is employed in Bahrain. The petitioner, after the estrangement, is living in her parental home at Mallappally. There is no person to chaperone the petitioner from Mallappally to Pala, to contest the ``` Tr.P.(C)Nos.309, 313 & 314/2022 ``` ``` -:7:- ``` above three cases. Moreover, since the first respondent is employed abroad, it is immaterial for him whether the cases are being contested at the Family Court at Pala or at Thiruvalla. Hence, the transfer petitions. 4. Heard; Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan (Thiruvalla), the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. S.K. Shyju, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 5. The point is whether these transfer petitions have to be allowed?. 6. 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** [(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. Vijaya** ``` Tr.P.(C)Nos.309, 313 & 314/2022 ``` ``` -:8:- ``` **Venkatesh** [2017 (4) KLT 415 (SC)] **Valsal Nisha v. Rajesh Soman Nair** [2020(8) KLR 475]. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that it is the convenience of the woman and children that has to be looked into, while ordering the transfer of a case from one Court to another. 7. In the light of the law laid down in the afore-cited decisions, the uncontroverted pleadings and materials on record and the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, especially the fact the petitioner is residing at Mallappally in Pathanamthitta District and that the first respondent is employed abroad in Bahrain, 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 the transfer of the above-mentioned three cases from the Family Court, Pala to the Family Court, Thiruvalla, so that the cases can be consolidated and jointly tried, ``` Tr.P.(C)Nos.309, 313 & 314/2022 ``` ``` -:9:- ``` which would save precious judicial time and avoid conflict of decisions. In the result, I allow the transfer petitions as follows: - (i) The transfer petitions are allowed, by ordering O.P.No.629/2019, O.P.(Div)Nos.630/2019 & 639/2019 to be withdrawn from the Family Court, Pala and be transferred to the Family Court, Thiruvalla. - (ii) The parties would be at liberty to move the Family Court, Thiruvalla and seek for consolidation and joint trial of the proceedings between them. - (iii) The Registry shall forthwith forward a copy of the common order to the Family Court, Pala with instructions to transmit the records in the above numbered cases to the Family Court, Thiruvalla. - (iv) The respondents would be at liberty to move the Family Court, Thiruvalla and seek for the dispensation of their personal appearance and ``` Tr.P.(C)Nos.309, 313 & 314/2022 ``` ``` -:10:- ``` also to avail the video conferencing facility. - (v) The Family Court, Thiruvalla shall, immediately on receipt of the records in the above numbered cases, issue notice to the parties for their appearance. Sd/- ## **C.S.DIAS,JUDGE** DST/05.08.22 //True copy/ P.A.To Judge ``` Tr.P.(C)Nos.309, 313 & 314/2022 ``` ``` -:11:- ``` ## `APPENDIX` ## `APPENDIX OF TR.P(C) 309/2022` ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE-1THE COPY OF PETITION IN O.P.(DIV) NO. 639 OF 2019 OF THE FAMILY COURT PALA, DATED 26.09.2019 ``` ``` RESPONDENT’S EXHIBITS: NIL ``` ``` Tr.P.(C)Nos.309, 313 & 314/2022 ``` ``` -:12:- ``` ## `APPENDIX OF TR.P(C) 313/2022` ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES ``` ``` ANNEXURE1THE COPY OF PETITION IN O.P. NO. 629 OF 2019 OF THE FAMILY COURT PALA, DATED 27.09.2019 ``` ``` RESPONDENT’S EXHIBITS: NIL ``` ``` Tr.P.(C)Nos.309, 313 & 314/2022 ``` ``` -:13:- ``` ## `APPENDIX OF TR.P(C) 314/2022` ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE1THE COPY OF PETITION IN O.P.(DIV) NO. 630 OF 2019 OF THE FAMILY COURT PALA, DATED 28.09.2019 ``` ``` RESPONDENT’S EXHIBITS: NIL ```