Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeTransfer petition allowed; O.P.(Guardian) No.40...

LIYA SARAH GEORGE v. MANU POIKAYIL ALEXANDER

Case / Petition Number:Tr.P.(C) No. 505/2022

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • C.S. DIAS
Judgment Date
2022-11-24
Court Decision / Holding
The transfer petition is allowed, transferring OP (Guardian) No.406/2022 from the Family Court, Pathanamthitta, to the Family Court, Thrissur. The parties are at liberty to move Thrissur Family Court for consolidation and joint trial of all related cases. The Registry must transmit the records in Ext P4 to Thrissur and the Thrissur Court shall post the case along with Exts P1 and P2 upon receipt.
Final Disposition
Transfer petition allowed; O.P.(Guardian) No.406/2022 transferred to Thrissur; consolidation and joint trial permitted; records to be transmitted to Thrissur Family Court; case to be posted there with Exts P1 and P2.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • LIYA SARAH GEORGE
  • GEORGE K P
  • MARRY GEORGE

Respondents

  • MANU POIKAYIL ALEXANDER

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • PRABHU K.N.
  • • MANUMON A.

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a transfer petition (Tr.P.(C) No.505/2022) under section 24 CPC filed in the Kerala High Court, seeking transfer of OP (Guardian) No.406/2022 from the Family Court, Pathanamthitta, to the Family Court, Thrissur. The petitioner(s) comprising Liya Sarah George (wife), and her parents George K P and Marry George, contend that the marital relationship with Manu Poikayil Alexander has deteriorated and that several related proceedings (OP (Divorce) No.2632/2021 and OP (Guardian) No.2613/2021) are already pending before the Thrissur Family Court, with another DV Act proceeding (M.C. No.32/2021) filed in Thrissur. The respondent is contesting Exts P1 and P2 before the Thrissur Family Court. The petition argues that transferring Ext P4 to Thrissur would consolidate all cases and avoid conflicting decisions, thereby saving judicial time and protecting the interests of the wife and child. The court relied on established Supreme Court jurisprudence, including Sumitha Sing and related decisions, to emphasize that the convenience of the woman and child should guide transfer orders in matrimonial disputes. Ultimately, the judge exercises discretionary power under section 24 CPC and grants the transfer, with directions for consolidation, transmission of records, and joint trial in Thrissur.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Res integra (noting that the law is no longer res integra)
  • Convenience of the woman and children in matrimonial disputes as the guiding principle for transfer

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners, led by Liya Sarah George, along with her parents, vouch that the marriage with Manu Poikayil Alexander is strained and that several related proceedings are already pending in the Thrissur Family Court (divorce and guardianship petitions) and in a DV Act matter. They submit that transferring OP Guardian 406/2022 from Pathanamthitta to Thrissur would consolidate all matrimonial and related proceedings, ensure uniformity, and save judicial time. Given the ongoing litigation in Thrissur and the respondent’s contest of Exts P1 and P2, consolidation in Thrissur would serve the interests of the wife and child. The court is guided by established Supreme Court jurisprudence emphasizing the convenience of the affected party (especially women and children) in transfer decisions.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondent did not appear at the hearing (notice served but no appearance). His pleadings in Exts P1 and P2 before the Thrissur Family Court are noted, but the respondent’s arguments in opposition to transfer are not explicitly set out in the order. The absence of appearance did not deter the court from applying settled law that transfer can be ordered where it serves convenience and avoids conflicting outcomes, particularly where related matters are already proceeding in the same court.

Cited Precedents (7)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Sumitha Sing—PositiveCited as part of the Supreme Court’s declaratory jurisprudence that governs transfer of matrimonial disputes based on the convenience of the wife and children.
V. Kumar Sanjay and another(2001)10 SCC 41PositiveSupreme Court authority reinforcing transfer principles in matrimonial cases.
Mona Aresh Goel v. Aresh Satya Goel(2000) 9 SCC 255PositiveCited for transfer-related considerations in matrimonial disputes.
Vaishali Shridhar Jagtap v. Shridhar Vishwanath JagtapAIR 2016 SC 3584PositiveSupreme Court guidance on welfare and transfer in family-law contexts.
Santhini V. Vijaya Venkatesh(2017) 4 KLT 415 (SC)PositiveSC decision cited to support convenience-based transfer of matrimonial matters.
N.C.V. Aiswarya v. A.S. Sharavana Karthik Sha2022(5) KHC 185PositiveKerala High Court/Supreme Court lineage cited for transfer principles in family matters.
Valsal Nisha v. Rajesh Soman Nair2020(8) KLR 475PositiveCited for established practice of transferring where convenient and efficient.

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 LIYA SARAH GEORGE v. MANU POIKAYIL ALEXANDER 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 ``` ``` THURSDAY, THE 24[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA, 1944 ``` ``` TR.P(C) NO. 505 OF 2022 ``` ``` IN OPGW 406/2022 OF FAMILY COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA ``` ``` PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: ``` ``` 1LIYA SARAH GEORGE, AGED 33 YEARS, THUNDUVILAYIL HOUSE, MALLASSERY P.O, PRAMADAM VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT PIN 689646 RESIDED WITH PARENTS AND BROTHER AT KATHALIKANDATHIL HOUSE, PARAVATTANI 9TH STREET, OLLURKARA VILLAGE, PRIYADARSANI NAGAR , THRISSUR EAST P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT PIN 680005, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT 5 FRANKLIN COURT, GUILDFORD SURREY UNITED KINGDOM, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER AJAY PETER GEORGE, AGED 30 YEARS S/O. GEORGE, H 84, KATHALIKANDATHIL HOUSE, PARAVATTANI 9TH STREET, OLLURKARA VILLAGE, PRIYADARSANI NAGAR, THRISSUR EAST P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT PIN 680005. 2GEORGE K P AGED 65 YEARS S/O. PATHROSE, H 84, KATHALIKANDATHIL HOUSE, PARAVATTANI 9TH STREET, OLLURKARA VILLAGE, PRIYADARSANI NAGAR, THRISSUR EAST P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT PIN 680005. 3MARRY GEORGE, AGED 62 YEARS, W/O GEORGE K P, ``` ``` Tr.P.(C)No.505/2022 ``` ``` -:2:- ``` ``` H 84, KATHALIKANDATHIL HOUSE, PARAVATTANI 9TH STREET, OLLURKARA VILLAGE, PRIYADARSANI NAGAR, THRISSUR EAST P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT PIN 680005. ``` ``` BY ADVS.PRABHU K.N. MANUMON A. ``` ## `RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:` ``` MANU POIKAYIL ALEXANDER, AGED 34 YEARS THUNDUVILAYIL HOUSE, MALLASSERY P.O, PRAMADAM VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT PIN 689646 PRESENTLY WORKING AT ROOM NO.36, BLOCK NO.2 STREET 216,MAHBOULA KUWAIT, PIN – 689646 ``` ``` THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` Tr.P.(C)No.505/2022 ``` ``` -:3:- ``` Dated this the 24[th] day of November,2022 ## **O R D E R** The transfer petition is filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908(in short, 'C.P.C.'), seeking to transfer O.P.(Guardian)No.406/2022(Ext P4), from the Family Court, Pathanamthitta, to the Family Court, Thrissur. 2. The petitioners’ case, in brief, in the memorandum of transfer petition is that, the first petitioner is the wife of the respondent. The petitioners 2 and 3 are the parents of the first petitioner. The first petitioner and the respondent have a son born in the wedlock. The marital relationship is strained. The first petitioner has already filed O.P.(Divorce) No.2632/2021 (Ext P1) and O.P.(Guardian) No.2613/2021 (Ext P2) ``` Tr.P.(C)No.505/2022 ``` ``` -:4:- ``` before the Family Court, Thrissur, against the respondent. She has also filed M.C.No.32/2021(Ext P3) before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Thrissur, against the respondent, invoking the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The respondent is contesting Exts P1 and P2 before the Family Court, Thrissur. Therefore, no inconvenience would be caused to him, in Ext P4 being transferred. Hence, the transfer petition. 3. Heard; Sri. Prabhu K.N., the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Even though notice is served on the respondent, there is no appearance for him. 4. 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** ``` Tr.P.(C)No.505/2022 ``` ``` -:5:- ``` **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 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]. 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. 5. 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, particularly the fact that Exts P1 and P2 are already pending before the Family Court, Thrissur, and the respondent is contesting the proceedings in the said court, I am ``` Tr.P.(C)No.505/2022 ``` ``` -:6:- ``` inclined to exercise the discretionary powers of this Court under Section 24 of the C.P.C. and order the transfer of Ext P4, so that the cases can be consolidated and jointly tried, which would save judicial time and avoid conflict of decisions. In the result, I pass the following directions: - (i) The transfer petition is allowed, by ordering the transfer of O.P.(Guardian)No.406/2022 from the Family Court, Pathanamthitta, to the Family Court, Thrissur. - (ii) The parties would be at liberty to move the Family Court, Thrissur, and seek for the consolidation and joint trial of all the cases between them. - (iii) The Registry shall forthwith forward a copy of the order to the Family Court, Pathanamthitta, with instructions to transmit the records in Ext P4 to the Family Court, Thrissur. - (iv) The Family Court, Thrissur shall, immediately ``` Tr.P.(C)No.505/2022 ``` ``` -:7:- ``` on receipt of the records in Ext P4, post the case along with Exts P1 and P2. Sd/- ## **C.S.DIAS,JUDGE** DST/24.11.22 //True copy/ P.A.To Judge ``` Tr.P.(C)No.505/2022 ``` ``` -:8:- ``` ## `APPENDIX` ## `PETITIONER ANNEXURES` ``` EXHIBIT P1 ``` ``` TRUE COPY OF OP (DIVORCE) NO.2632/2021 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE FAMILY COURT THRISSUR FOR A DECREE OF DIVORCE ``` - `EXHIBIT P2` ``` TRUE COPY OF OP (GUARDIAN) NO.2613/2021 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE FAMILY COURT THRISSUR FOR CUSTODY OF MINOR ``` - `EXHIBIT P3` ``` TRUE COPY OF M.C NO.32/2021 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE JUDICAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT I THRISSUR UNDER SECTION 12 OF PROTECTION OF WOMEN FROM DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT ``` ``` EXHIBIT P4TRUE COPY OF OP (GUARDIAN) NO.406/2022 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE FAMILY COURT PATHANAMTHITTA FOR CUSTODY OF MINOR ``` ``` RESPONDENT ANNEXURES: NIL ```