Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgePetitions dismissed; transfer petitions not mer...

Meria Joseph v. Anoop S. Ponnattu (Tr.P(C) Nos. 504/2021; 486/2021; 488/2021; 495/2021)

Case / Petition Number:TR.P(C) Nos. 504/2021; 486/2021; 488/2021; 495/2021

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • A. Badharudeen
Judgment Date
2022-01-03
Court Decision / Holding
The petitions are dismissed. The court held that availing a temporary residence or rental accommodation does not constitute a ground to transfer cases within the same jurisdiction, and that convenience alone cannot mandate a transfer. The judge reasoned that such temporary shifts are not static and could be reversed, leading to recurring transfers. Thus, Meria Joseph’s transfer petitions (Tr.P(C) Nos. 504/2021, 486/2021, 488/2021, 495/2021 and connected cases) are not warranted, and the matter shall continue before the Family Court at Pala.
Final Disposition
Petitions dismissed; transfer petitions not merited; continued jurisdiction with Family Court, Pala.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Meria Joseph

Respondents

  • Anoop S. Ponnattu
  • Sunny Joseph
  • Jessy Sunny

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • P. T. Abhilash
  • • L. D. Lijoroy

Counsels for Respondents

  • • P. C. Haridas

Case Synopsis & Summary

Meria Joseph, wife of Anoop S. Ponnattu, has filed transfer petitions in the Kerala High Court seeking to transfer four family court proceedings from Pala to Attingal, arguing that her move for employment has made attendance at Pala impracticable. The petitions, listed as Tr.P(C) Nos. 504/2021, 486/2021, 488/2021 and 495/2021 (along with connected cases), were heard by Justice A. Badharudeen on 3 January 2022. Meria asserts relocation to Attingal due to a new job as a Digital Marketing Trainee and the presence of a rental home there, placing her and her 3½-year-old child closer to the new residence. Her counsel relies on precedents emphasizing individual merit and circumstances in transfer petitions, including Sumitha Singh v. Kumar Saanjay and others; Mangla Patil Kale v. Sanjeev Kumar Kale; and Anindita Das v. Srijit Das, while acknowledging that Vidhya Mundekkat v. Akhilesh Jayaram cautions against automatic transfers merely due to inconvenience. The respondent, Anoop S. Ponnattu, opposed the transfer, arguing that temporary shifts in residence, such as rental arrangements, are not static and should not drive transfers, and contends that the matter should remain in the Family Court at Pala. The court evaluates the authorities, finds that reliance on a temporary residence as a transfer ground is untenable, and ultimately dismisses the transfer petitions, holding that temporary residence cannot justify transfer within the same jurisdiction. The matter concludes with all petitions dismissed and the parties to continue before the Family Court, Pala.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 10(x) of Divorce Act 1869 read with Section 7 of Family Court ActSection 7(1) and Explanation of Family Courts Act, 1984Section 20 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act 1956 read with Section 7(1) Explanation of Family Courts Act, 1984Section 8 & 9 of the Guardian and Wards Act 1890 read with Section 7(1) Explanation of Family Courts Act, 1984

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Each case must be decided on its merits (Apex Court view cited in Anindita Das v. Srijit Das)
  • Not automatic that a wife’s inconvenience warrants transfer of case
  • Temporary residence (even if rental) is not a static ground for transfer
  • Parameters for transfer of cases at the instance of the wife must be considered in light of authorities such as Vidhya Mundekkat v. Akhilesh Jayaram and related judgments

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Meria Joseph contends that her relocation to Attingal, due to employment and the presence of a rental residence, makes attending the Family Court at Pala onerous. She submits that a transfer to Attingal is justified to balance her professional and parental responsibilities, supported by annexures showing appointment and rental arrangements. She relies on jurisprudence (Sumitha Singh; Mangla Patil Kale; Anindita Das) to argue for a merits-based evaluation and cites Vidhya Mundekkat to stress that a wife’s convenience is not automatic grounds, but advocates a transfer if warranted by merit.

Contentions of Respondents

Anoop S. Ponnattu opposes transfer, arguing that the wife’s temporary relocation and leasing of rental premises are not static and should not become a basis for transferring cases. He emphasizes that the petitions should be decided on the merits and that shifting jurisdiction would disrupt timely adjudication; reliance is placed on case law emphasizing merit-based transfer rather than convenience.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Sumitha Singh v. Kumar Saanjay and others2002 KHC 1889; AIR 2002 SC 396; 2001 AIR SCW 5193; (2001) 10 SCC 41DistinguishedCourt did not adopt the Sumitha Singh ratio; preferred merit-based considerations and other authorities indicating non-automatic transfers.
Mangla Patil Kale v. Sanjeev Kumar Kale(2003) 10 SCC 280DistinguishedCourt did not follow this ratio as a blanket rule; emphasized that eligibility for transfer must be weighed with contemporaneous authorities.
Anindita Das v. Srijit Das2006 KHC 1887; (2006) 9 SCC 197PositiveApex Court’s principle that each case must be considered on its merit supported the court’s approach to merited analysis.
Vidhya Mundekkat v. Akhilesh Jayaram2021 (6) KHC 506PositiveCourt used the decision to stress that transfer on convenience is not automatic and must be justified by merits.

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 Meria Joseph v. Anoop S. Ponnattu (Tr.P(C) Nos. 504/2021; 486/2021; 488/2021; 495/2021) 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 A. BADHARUDEEN`** ``` MONDAY, THE 3[RD] DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 13TH POUSHA, 1943 ``` ## **`TR.P(C) NO. 504 OF 2021`** ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OPDIV 693/2019 OF FAMILY COURT, PALA ``` ## **`PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:`** ``` MERIA JOSEPH AGED 29 YEARS D/O.M.V.JOSEPH, MUNDENKODUPPEL HOUSE, PAMPADY P.O., KOTTAYAM, PIN-686502. BY ADVS. P.T.ABHILASH L.D.LIJOROY ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER:`** ``` ANOOP S. PONNATTU AGED 31 YEARS S/O.SUNNY JOSEPH, PONNATTU, PANACHIKAPARA, POONJAR P.O., MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686581. BY ADV P.C.HARIDAS ``` ``` THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.01.2022, ALONG WITH Tr.P(C).486/2021, 488/2021 AND 495/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` Tr.P(C) Nos.488 Of 2021 & con.cases ``` ``` -2- ``` ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN MONDAY, THE 3[RD] DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 13TH POUSHA, 1943 TR.P(C) NO. 486 OF 2021 ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP 413/2018 OF FAMILY COURT, PALA PETITIONER: ``` ``` MERIA JOSEPH AGED 29 YEARS D/O. M.V.JOSEPH, MUNDENKODUPPEL HOUSE, PAMPADY P.O., KOTTAYAM, PIN-686 502. BY ADVS. P.T.ABHILASH L.D.LIJOROY ``` ``` RESPONDENT: ``` ``` ANOOP S.PONNATTU AGED 31 YEARS S/O. SUNNY, PONNATTU, PANACHIPARA, POOJAR P.O., KOTTAYAM, PIN-686 581. BY ADV P.C.HARIDAS ``` ``` THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.01.2022, ALONG WITH Tr.P(C).504/2021 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` Tr.P(C) Nos.488 Of 2021 & con.cases ``` ``` -3- ``` ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN ``` ``` MONDAY, THE 3[RD] DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 13TH POUSHA, 1943 ``` ``` TR.P(C) NO. 488 OF 2021 ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OPGW 695/2019 OF FAMILY COURT, ``` ## **`PALA`** ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` MERIA JOSEPH AGED 29 YEARS D/O. M.V.JOSEPH, MUNDENKODUPPEL HOUSE, PAMPADY P.O., KOTTAYAM, PIN-686 502. BY ADVS. P.T.ABHILASH L.D.LIJOROY ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** ``` ANOOP S. PONNATTU AGED 31 YEARS S/O. SUNNY, PONNATTU, PANACHIPARA, POOJAR P.O., KOTTAYAM, PIN-686 581. BY ADV P.C.HARIDAS ``` ``` THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.01.2022, ALONG WITH Tr.P(C).504/2021 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` Tr.P(C) Nos.488 Of 2021 & con.cases ``` ``` -4- ``` ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN`** ``` MONDAY, THE 3[RD] DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 13TH POUSHA, 1943 ``` ``` TR.P(C) NO. 495 OF 2021 ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP 412/2018 OF FAMILY COURT, PALA PETITIONER: ``` ``` MERIA JOSEPH AGED 29 YEARS D/O.M.V.JOSEPH, MUNDENKODUPPEL HOUSE, PAMPADY P.O., KOTTAYAM, PIN-686502. BY ADVS. P.T.ABHILASH L.D.LIJOROY ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** |**`1`**|**`ANOOP S. PONNATTU`**| |---|---| ||**`AGED 31 YEARS`**| ||**`S/O.SUNNY, PONNATTU, PANACHIPARA,`**| ||**`POOJAR P.O., KOTTAYAM, PIN-686581.`**| |**`2`**|**`SUNNY JOSEPH,`**| ||**`AGED 59 YEARS`**| ||**`S/O.JOSEPH, PONNATTU, PANACHIPARA,`**| ||**`POOJAR P.O., KOTTAYAM, PIN-686581.`**| |**`3`**|**`JESSY SUNNY,`**| ||**`AGED 55 YEARS`**| ||**`W/O.SUNNY, PONNATTU, PANACHIPARA,`**| ||**`POOJAR P.O., KOTTAYAM, PIN-686581.`**| ||**`BY ADV P.C.HARIDAS`**| ``` THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.01.2022, ALONG WITH Tr.P(C).504/2021 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` Tr.P(C) Nos.488 Of 2021 & con.cases ``` **CR** **==> picture [22 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** ## **O R D E R** Dated this the 3[rd] day of January, 2022 These are transfer petitions filed by Meria Joseph, wife against her husband seeking transfer of O.P.Nos.412/2018 and 413/2018 filed by the petitioner herein before the Family Court, Pala and to transfer O.P.(Div).No.693/2019 and O.P.(G&W) No.695/2019 filed by the respondent husband before the Family Court Pala, to the Family Court, Attingal. 2. Heard both sides in detail. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner/wife that the wife who originally belonged to Pambady in Pala filed two Original Petitions and the husband, a resident within the jurisdiction of the Family Court, Pala also filed two Original Petitions before the Family Court, Pala. It is submitted that now the petitioner got appointment as Digital Marketing Trainee in Thiruvananthapuram and therefore, she had shifted her residence to Attingal. It is submitted further that now the petitioner has been residing in a rental house in Attingal. A rent deed showing availing of rental house in Attingal also has been ``` Tr.P(C) Nos.488 Of 2021 & con.cases ``` ``` -6- ``` placed in support of this contention. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit further that the petitioner at present has been residing in Attingal along with 3 ½ year old child and therefore, she has been experiencing difficulties to reach the Family Court, Pala to conduct the cases. As such, the learned counsel pressed for transfer as sought for. 5. The husband/respondent who opposed the transfer petition filed detailed counter, stating that M.C.No.6/2018 was filed by the petitioner before the Grama Nyayalaya, Pampady and that was allowed in favour of the petitioner. Against which Crl.A.No.171/2018 filed before the Sessions Court, Kottayam and the same was allowed and modified the order on 10.07.2020. It is submitted further that a shift in place of residence by the petitioner at her convenience that too in a rental house, cannot be a reason to transfer cases at her convenience. In this connection, the learned counsel for the respondent/husband placed recent decision of this Court in **Vidhya Mundekkat v. Akhilesh Jayaram (2021 (6) KHC 506)** . ## **`Tr.P(C) Nos.488 Of 2021 & con.cases`** ``` -7- ``` 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that following the ratio in the decisions reported in **Sumitha Singh v. Kumar Saanjay and others** (2002 KHC 1889 : AIR 2002 SC 396 : 2001 AIR SCW 5193 : (2001) 10 SCC 41 : 2001 (5) Supreme 667), **Mangla Patil Kale v. Sanjeev Kumar Kale** ((2003) 10 SCC 280), and **Anindita Das v. Srijit Das** (2006 KHC 1887 : (2006) 9 SCC 197), the petitioner is entitled to get transfer of these proceedings to place of her convenience. 7. In fact, in the decision in **Vidhya Mundekkat' case** (supra) **,** a Division Bench of this Court considered the parameters to be borne in mind while considering transfer of cases at the instance of the wife and after referring the above decisions it was held that it is not an invariable rule that whenever a wife makes a request pointing out her inconvenience, transfer of a case to a court of her choice is automatic. 8. In **Anindita Das'** case (supra), the Apex Court held that each case must be considered on its merit. 9. It is in this context, the grievance of the petitioner requires to be addressed. Here, the petitioner wants to transfer the above cases on the assertion that she had shifted her ``` Tr.P(C) Nos.488 Of 2021 & con.cases ``` ``` -8- ``` permanent residence in Pala to a rental house in Attingal. Now the crucial question is; whether temporary shift of residence by the wife is a reason to transfer of cases within the jurisdiction of the said temporary residence? 10. Here, admittedly, the petitioner originally is a permanent resident of Pala. Her husband, the respondent also has been residing in Pala. These transfer petitions have been filed only on the ground that the petitioner shifted her residence at present to Attingal, that too in a rental house. I do not think that shifting a permanent residence to a temporary residence, that too in a rental house by itself is a ground to transfer cases pending within the jurisdiction of the permanent residence of both parties. The rational is; in the case of temporary residence, particularly rental accommodation, the same is not at all static and it can be changed for any immediate reason. If cases are transferred to such temporary abode, again and again cases will have to be transferred, when the temporary residence being shifted. Therefore, I am of the considered view that availing a temporary residence, either by way of rental accommodation or otherwise shall not be a ground to allow transfer of cases on the mere plea that the said place is convenient to the wife. ``` Tr.P(C) Nos.488 Of 2021 ``` ``` & con.cases ``` ``` -9- ``` In view of the above finding, I find no merit in these transfer petitions. Accordingly, these petitions stand dismissed. S **d/A.BADHARUDEEN JUDGE** ``` nkr ``` ``` Tr.P(C) Nos.488 Of 2021 & con.cases ``` ``` -10- ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF TR.P(C) 504/2021`** ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure ATRUE COPY OF O.P(DIV)NO.693/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED FAMILY COURT, PALA, FILED BY THE RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 10(X) OF DIVORCE ACT 1869 R/W SECTION 7 OF FAMILY COURT ACT. Annexure BTRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPOINTMENT LETTER DATED 26.08.2019 ISSUED BY THE EDWIZA SOLUTIONS PVT.LTD. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TO THE PETITIONER. Annexure CTRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RENTAL AGREEMENT DATED 05.07.2021 BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND MINIMOL. ``` ``` Tr.P(C) Nos.488 Of 2021 & con.cases ``` ``` -11- ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF TR.P(C) 486/2021`** ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure ATRUE COPY OF O.P.NO.413/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED FAMILY COURT, PALA FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR SEEKING RESTITUTION OF CONJUGAL RIGHTS. Annexure BTRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPOINTMENT LETTER DATED 26.8.2021 ISSUED BY THE EDWIZA SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TO THE PETITIONER. Annexure CTRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RENTAL AGREEMENT DATED 5.7.2021 BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND MINIMOL. ``` ``` Tr.P(C) Nos.488 Of 2021 & con.cases ``` ``` -12- ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF TR.P(C) 488/2021`** ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure ATRUE COPY OF O.P.(G & W) NO.695/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED FAMILY COURT, PALA FILED UNDER SECTION 8 & 9 OF THE GUARDIAN AND WARDS ACT 1890 R/W SECTION 7(1) EXPLANATION OF FAMILY COURTS ACT, 1984. Annexure BTRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPOINTMENT LETTER DATED 26.8.2021 ISSUED BY THE EDWIZA SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TO THE PETITIONER. Annexure CTRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RENTAL AGREEMENT DATED 5.7.2021 BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND MINIMOL. ``` ``` Tr.P(C) Nos.488 Of 2021 & con.cases ``` ``` -13- ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF TR.P(C) 495/2021`** ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure ATRUE COPY OF O.P.NO.412/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED FAMILY COURT, PALA, FILED UNDER SECTION 20 OF HINDU ADOPTION AND MAINTENANCE ACT 1956 R/W SECTION 7(1) EXPLANATION OF FAMILY COURT ACT, 1984. Annexure BTRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPOINTMENT LETTER DATED 26.08.2021 ISSUED BY THE EDWIZA SOLUTIONS PVT.LTD. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TO THE PETITIONER. Annexure CTRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RENTAL AGREEMENT DATED 05.07.2021 BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND MINIMOL. ```