Mohandas P.K. v. Jalaja Augustine

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Basant Balaji
Judgment Date: 2022-06-08
Court Decision / Holding: Transfer petitions dismissed. The personal appearance of the petitioner shall be insisted by the Family Court, Kattappana only on postings for which physical presence is required.
Final Disposition: Transfer petitions dismissed; personal appearance to be insisted by Kattappana Court only when required.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Mohandas P.K.

Respondents

Jalaja Augustine

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Jithin Babu A

Counsels for Respondents

• Joby Joseph
• Baby Thomas George T.J
• Alicia Jose

Case Synopsis & Summary

This High Court of Kerala, in a common order on 8 June 2022, deals with three transfer petitions filed by Mohandas P.K., the husband, under Tr.P(C) Nos. 695/2019, 693/2019 and 696/2019, seeking to transfer family-court proceedings from Kattappana to Thrissur. The petitions relate to OP 273/2019 (wife’s case for divorce, return of gold ornaments, and maintenance), OP 413/2019, and MC 116/2019, all filed before the Family Court at Kattappana. The petitioner contends that the distance to the Kattappana court is about 190 kilometers and that he must care for an elderly, bedridden sister, making travel onerous and causing harassment. The respondent opposes transfer, arguing she cannot travel to Thrissur due to family obligations and her own health concerns, and notes the petitioner’s own past travel to Mumbai. After hearing, the learned judge, Basant Balaji, observes that despite the petitioner’s age (57) and health issues, the hardship to the respondent—a lady who would have to travel long distances—cannot be ignored. Relying on Sumita Singh v. Kumar Sanjay (2001) 10 SCC 41 and Rajani Kishor Pardeshi v. Kishor Babulal Pardeshi (2005) 12 SCC 237, among other decisions, the court declines to transfer, finding no compelling reasons to move the cases away from Kattappana. The petitions are dismissed, with a direction that personal appearances be required by the Kattappana court only when strictly necessary.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that the distance from his residence to the Family Court, Kattappana, is about 190 km, causing undue hardship and distress, particularly as he must also look after his elderly, bedridden sister. He asserts that the Family Court proceedings (divorce, maintenance, return of ornaments) are being used to harass him and seeks transfer to the Family Court, Thrissur, for convenience and to reduce travel burden.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondent argues there will be extreme hardship for her to travel to Thrissur; she is caring for ailing parents and has health concerns, and she has already relocated to Upputhodu in Idukki. She asks that the transfer petitions be dismissed, contending the petitioner’s asserted travel difficulties are not compelling and that he has previously traveled to Mumbai, indicating his ability to travel when needed.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Sumita Singh v. Kumar Sanjay	(2001) 10 SCC 41	Positive	Cited to support the principle that hardship and inter-location transfer considerations should be weighed in favor of maintaining proceedings in the court having jurisdiction, particularly where the respondent’s convenience and well-being are at stake.
Rajani Kishor Pardeshi v. Kishor Babulal Pardeshi	(2005) 12 SCC 237	Positive	Cited alongside Sumita Singh to reinforce the stance that courts consider the impact of transfer on a party (especially a female party) and should not transfer cases where it would cause undue hardship, thereby supporting dismissal of the petitions.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ## PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI WEDNESDAY, THE 8[TH] DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 18TH JYAISHTA, 1944 ## TR.P(C) NO. 695 OF 2019 IN OP 273/2019 OF FAMILY COURT, KATTAPPANA ## PETITIONER/S: MOHANDAS P.K., AGED 57 YEARS S/O KUNJUNNI, POTTEKATTU HOUSE, ALAPADU P.O, CHAZHOOR VILLAGE, ANTHIKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 641 BY ADV JITHIN BABU A ## RESPONDENT/S: JALAJA AUGUSTINE, AGED 42 YEARS MANJAKUZHAYIL HOUSE, VIMALAGIRI P.O, THADIYAMPADU KARA, UPPUTHODU VILLAGE, IDUKKI TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT - 685 604 BY ADVS. SRI.JOBY JOSEPH, BABY THOMAS GEORGE T.J(K/1459/2020) ALICIA JOSE(K/001437/2021) THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.06.2022, ALONG WITH Tr.P(C).693/2019, 696/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **Tr.P.(C) Nos.695, 693 & 696/2019** **-2-** IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ## PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI WEDNESDAY, THE 8[TH] DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 18TH JYAISHTA, 1944 ## TR.P(C) NO. 693 OF 2019 IN OP 413/2019 OF FAMILY COURT, KATTAPPANA PETITIONER/S: MOHANDAS P.K., AGED 57 YEARS S/O.KUNJUNNI, POTTEKKATTU HOUSE, ALAPADU P.O., CHAZHOOR VILLAGE, ANTHIKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 641. BY ADV JITHIN BABU A ## RESPONDENT/S: JALAJA AUGUSTINE, AGED 42, MANJAKUZHAYIL HOUSE, VIMALAGIRI P.O., THADIYAMPADU KARA, UPPUTHODU VILLAGE, IDUKKI TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT - 685 604. BY ADVS. SRI.JOBY JOSEPH, BABY THOMAS GEORGE T.J(K/1459/2020) ALICIA JOSE(K/001437/2021) THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.06.2022, ALONG WITH Tr.P(C).695/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **Tr.P.(C) Nos.695, 693 & 696/2019** **-3-** IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ## PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI WEDNESDAY, THE 8[TH] DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 18TH JYAISHTA, 1944 ## TR.P(C) NO. 696 OF 2019 IN MC 116/2019 OF FAMILY COURT, KATTAPPANA ## PETITIONER/S: MOHANDAS P.K., AGED 57 YEARS S/O KUNJUNNI, POTTEKATTU HOUSE, ALAPADU P.O, CHAZHOOR VILLAGE, ANTHIKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 641 BY ADV JITHIN BABU A ## RESPONDENT/S: JALAJA AUGUSTINE, AGED 42 YEARS MANJAKUZHAYIL HOUSE, VIMALAGIRI P.O, THADIYAMPADU KARA, UPPUTHODU VILLAGE, IDUKKI TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.JOBY JOSEPH, BABY THOMAS GEORGE T.J(K/1459/2020) ALICIA JOSE(K/001437/2021) THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.06.2022, ALONG WITH Tr.P(C).695/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **Tr.P.(C) Nos.695, 693 & 696/2019** **-4-** ## O R D E R [Tr.P(C) Nos.695/2019, 693/2019, 696/2019] All these petitions are filed by the husband to transfer the cases pending before the Family Court, Kattappana to the Family Court, Thrissur. 2. The cases pending before the Family Court, Kattappana are filed by the respondent for divorce, return of gold ornaments and for getting maintenance. The petitioner has entered appearance in all the cases before the Family Court, Kattappana. These transfer petitions are filed by the husband to transfer all the cases to Family Court, Thrissur on the ground that he has to travel almost 190 kms to reach the Family Court at Kattappana. It is very difficult for him to do so. He is aged 57 years and suffering from various diseases. He has an elder sister who is aged 65 years, she is bedridden and the petitioner **Tr.P.(C) Nos.695, 693 & 696/2019** **-5-** is looking after her. The cases are filed by the Family Court, Kattappana only to harass him. On these grounds, the petitioner/husband seeks a transfer of proceedings before the Family Court, Kattappana to the Family Court, Thrissur. 3. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent. It is stated that the respondent and the petitioner were residing in Mumbai till 2019 and he lost his job due to his addiction to alcohol. The respondent has to take care of her father who is 88 years old. He is completely bedridden. Her mother is a cardiac patient, and she lives along with her daughter. The respondent is living at Upputhodu in Idukki District since 2019 and it is difficult for her to travel from Kattappana to the Family Court, Thrissur, if the same is transferred. It is also contended that the petitioner used to travel to Mumbai and hence he does not have any difficulty travelling to Kattappana. She also stated that the petitioner has threatened the respondent on several **Tr.P.(C) Nos.695, 693 & 696/2019** **-6-** occasions. On these allegations, she prays for dismissal of the transfer petition. 4. Heard the counsel for the parties. 5. The cases pending before the Kattapana Court are filed by the respondent for divorce, return of gold ornaments and seeking maintenance. She contends that her father is aged and her mother, who is a cardiac patient, is also staying with her and there is nobody to accompany her to the Family Court, Thrissur. She filed the cases before the Family Court, Kattappana since the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of that Court. The main ground raised by the petitioner is that the distance from Kattappana to his residence is 190 kms and it is difficult for him to travel. A person aged 57 years and able-bodied cannot contend that the distance of 190 km is difficult for him to travel. **Tr.P.(C) Nos.695, 693 & 696/2019** **==> picture [16 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** 6. Taking into consideration the hardship that would cause the respondent, who is a lady, to travel from Kattappana to Thrissur and noting the decisions of the Apex Court in _**Sumita Singh v. Kumar Sanjay**_ **- (2001) 10 SCC 41;** _**Rajani Kishor Pardeshi v. Kishor Babulal Pardeshi**_ – **(2005) 12 SCC 237** and a plethora of other decisions, I am of the opinion that the prayer sought by the petitioner in these transfer petitioners cannot be allowed. In the result, the transfer petitions are dismissed. It is made clear that the personal appearance of the petitioner shall be insisted by the Family Court, Kattapana only on postings for which the physical presence is required. Sd/- BASANT BALAJI JUDGE jjj **Tr.P.(C) Nos.695, 693 & 696/2019** **-8-** ## APPENDIX OF TR.P(C) 693/2019 PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE I A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF MARRIAGE DATED 06/05/2009. ANNEXURE II A TRUE COPY OF THE OP 413 OF 2019 FILED BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, KATTAPPANA DATED 19/07/2019. **Tr.P.(C) Nos.695, 693 & 696/2019** **-9-** ## APPENDIX OF TR.P(C) 696/2019 PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE I A TRUE COPY OF THE M.C. NO.116 OF 2019 FILED BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, KATTAPPANA DATED 19.7.2019 **Tr.P.(C) Nos.695, 693 & 696/2019** **-10-** ## APPENDIX OF TR.P(C) 695/2019 PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE I A TRUE COPY OF THE OP NO. 273 OF 2019 FILED BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT , KATTAPPANA DATED 18.5.2019