High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeTransfer petitions allowed; cases transferred t...

Nasiya v. Sabu A

Case / Petition Number:Tr.P.(C) No. 279/2021; Tr.P.(Crl.) No. 33/2021

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • C.S. Dias
Judgment Date
2022-06-17
Court Decision / Holding
The transfer petitions are allowed. MC No.495/2019 and OP(GW) No.1768/2019 are to be transferred from the Family Court, Attingal to the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The Court may consolidate and conduct a joint trial, and the Records shall be transmitted to the receiving court. Notices to the parties should be issued by the receiving court.
Final Disposition
Transfer petitions allowed; cases transferred to Thiruvananthapuram Family Court; consolidation and joint trial may be pursued; records transmitted; notices to be issued by the receiving court.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • NASIYA
  • MUHAMMED HAFIZ
  • MUHAMMED BISMIN
  • MUHSIN
  • FATIMA SALMA

Respondents

  • SABU A

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • K.R.RAJKUMAR
  • • SRI.JAGADEESH LAKSHMAN
  • • SRI.RAHUL RAJ

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Latheesh Sebastian

Case Synopsis & Summary

This High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam, hears transfer petitions filed by Nasiya (wife) and her children seeking transfer of matrimonial proceedings from the Family Court, Attingal, to the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The wife filed Tr.P(C) No.279/2021 under Section 24 CPC seeking transfer of O.P.(GW) No.1768/2019, while Tr.P.(Crl.) No.33/2021 seeks transfer of M.C.No.495/2019 under Cr.P.C. 407. The petitioners contend the wife suffers from depression and trauma, is living in Thiruvananthapuram with her paternal aunt, has been harassed by police, and lacks funds and counsel to travel to Attingal, making travel onerous for herself and the children. The respondent reportedly has no objection to the transfer. The court references Supreme Court jurisprudence (Sumitha Sing; Mona Aresh Goel; Vaishali Shridhar Jagtap; Santhini Venkatesh; Valsal Nisha) holding that the convenience of the wife and children is the decisive factor in transfer of matrimonial disputes, and exercises its discretionary power under Section 24 CPC and Section 407 Cr.P.C. Consequently, the petitions are allowed, transferring both matters to the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram, with liberty to consolidate and joint trial, and records to be transmitted forthwith.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 24 of CPCSection 407 of Cr.P.C.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Convenience of the wife and children as the guiding principle in transfer of matrimonial disputes.
  • Discretionary transfer under CPC 24 and Cr.P.C. 407 based on welfare and convenience of the parties.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submit that the wife is undergoing treatment for depression after a period of judicial custody and faces police harassment; she resides in Thiruvananthapuram with her paternal aunt and cannot practically travel to Attingal for court proceedings. NGO legal aid is available to assist, and a transfer would ease access to justice for the wife and children, enabling consolidation and joint trial. The decision aligns with Supreme Court precedents emphasizing the convenience of the woman and children in matrimonial transfer cases under CPC Sec.24 and Cr.P.C. Sec.407.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondent’s counsel stated there is no objection to transferring the proceedings, underscoring the welfare of the wife and children and the need to facilitate a fair, convenient forum; the respondent did not oppose the transfer and urged adherence to applicable law.

Cited Precedents (5)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Sumitha Sing v. Kumar Sanjay and another(2001) 10 SCC 41PositiveCited to support the principle that the convenience of the wife and children governs transfer of matrimonial disputes.
Mona Aresh Goel v. Aresh Satya Goel(2000) 9 SCC 255PositiveAffirms the welfare-based transfer principle in matrimonial matters.
Vaishali Shridhar Jagtap v. Shridhar Vishwanath JagtapAIR 2016 SC 3584PositiveReinforces the convenience-of-women-and-children doctrine in transfer cases.
Santhini V. Vijaya Venkatesh2017 (4) KLT 415 (SC)PositiveUsed to substantiate the transfer principle for matrimonial disputes.
Valsal Nisha v. Rajesh Soman Nair2020 (8) KLR 475PositiveSupports the discretionary transfer framework in light of convenience and welfare.

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 Nasiya v. Sabu A 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 17[TH] DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 27TH JYAISHTA, 1944 ``` ## **`TR.P(C) NO. 279 OF 2021`** ## **`IN OP(GW)NO.1768/2019 OF FAMILY COURT, ATTINGAL`** ## **`PETITIONER/PETITIONER:`** ``` NASIYA, AGED 36 YEARS, D/O.SHERIFUDDIN, ARA VEETTIL, VAKKOM P.O., VAKKOM DESOM, VAKKOM VILLAGE, CHIRAYENKEEZHU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 102. ``` ``` BY ADVS.R.RAJKUMAR SRI.JAGADEESH LAKSHMAN SRI.RAHUL RAJ ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/1ST RESPONDENT:`** ``` SABU.A. S/O.ABDUL HAI, SHAFIZ MANZIL, MANANAKKU, PERUMKULAM P.O., PERUMKULAM DESOM, MANAMBUR VILLAGE, CHIRAYENKEEZHU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 102. ``` ``` THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.06.2022, ALONG WITH TR.P(CRL.).33/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` Tr.P.(C)No.279/2021& Tr.P.(Crl.)No.33/2021 ``` ``` -:2:- ``` # **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS ``` ``` FRIDAY, THE 17[TH] DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 27TH JYAISHTA, 1944 ``` ``` TR.P(CRL.) NO. 33 OF 2021 IN MC 495/2019 OF FAMILY COURT, ATTINGAL ``` ## **`PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS:`** ``` 1NASIYA, AGED 36 YEARS, D/O. SHERIFUDDIN, ARA VEETTIL, VAKKOM P.O., VAKKOM DESOM, VAKKOM VILLAGE, CHIRAYENKEEZHU TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2MUHAMMED HAFIZ, AGED 17 YEARS, ARA VEETTIL, VAKKOM P.O., VAKKOM DESOM, VAKKOM VILLAGE, CHIRAYENKEEZHU TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER AND 1ST PETITIONER NASIYA. 3MUHAMMED BISMIN, AGED 14 YEARS, ARA VEETTIL, VAKKOM P.O., VAKKOM DESOM, VAKKOM VILLAGE, CHIRAYENKEEZHU TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER AND 1ST PETITIONER NASIYA. 4MUHAMMED MUHSIN, AGED 11 YEARS ARA VEETTIL, VAKKOM P.O., VAKKOM DESOM, VAKKOM VILLAGE, CHIRAYENKEEZHU TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER AND 1ST PETITIONER NASIYA. 5FATIMA SALMA, AGED 6 YEARS ARA VEETTIL, VAKKOM P.O., VAKKOM DESOM, VAKKOM ``` ``` Tr.P.(C)No.279/2021& Tr.P.(Crl.)No.33/2021 ``` ``` -:3:- ``` ``` VILLAGE, CHIRAYENKEEZHU TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER AND 1ST PETITIONER NASIYA. ``` ``` BY ADVS.K.R.RAJKUMAR SRI.JAGADEESH LAKSHMAN SRI.RAHUL RAJ ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:`** ``` SABU A S/O. ABDUL HAI, SHAFIZ MANZIL, MANANAKKU, PERUMKULAM P.O., PERUMKULAM DESOM, MANAMBUR VILLAGE, CHIRAYENKEEZHU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695102. ``` ``` THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.06.2022, ALONG WITH Tr.P(C).279/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` Tr.P.(C)No.279/2021& Tr.P.(Crl.)No.33/2021 ``` ``` -:4:- ``` Dated this the 17[th] day of June,2022 ## **COMMON ORDER** As these transfer petitions are filed by the wife and children against the husband /father, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitioner – wife – has filed Tr.P(C) No.279/2021 and the petitioners – wife and children – have filed Tr.P.(Crl.) No.33/2021 [under Sections 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, 'CPC') and 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (in short, 'Cr.P.C.'), respectively], seeking to transfer O.P. (GW)No.1768/2019 and M.C.No.495/2019, respectively, from the Family Court, Attingal, to the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The parties are, for the sake of convenience, referred to as per their status in Tr.P(Crl.)No.33/2021. 3. The petitioners' case in brief, in Tr.P(Crl.)No.33/2021 is that; the first petitioner is the ``` Tr.P.(C)No.279/2021& Tr.P.(Crl.)No.33/2021 ``` ``` -:5:- ``` wife of the respondent. The petitioners 2 to 5 are the children born in the wedlock between the first petitioner and the respondent. Since the respondent has willfully refused to maintain the petitioners, they have filed M.C.No.495/2019 before the Family Court, Attingal. The first petitioner has also filed O.P. (GW)No.1768/2019 before the same court, seeking the custody of petitioners 2 to 4, who are in the illegal custody of the respondent. Now, the first petitioner is not in a mental frame of mind to live in her parental home at Chirayenkeezhu. She is living in Thiruvananthapuram along with her paternal aunt. She is undertoing treatment for depression, after her release from Judicial custody on account of false criminal case foisted against her by the respondent. The police are harassing her. The lawyers at Attingal have refused to defend her at the Family Court, Attingal. Presently, a NGO has volunteered to offer free legal aid to the first petitioner. The first petitioner ``` Tr.P.(C)No.279/2021& Tr.P.(Crl.)No.33/2021 ``` ``` -:6:- ``` does not have means to travel from Thiruvananthapuram to Attingal to prosecute M.C.No.495/2019 and O.P.(GW)No.1768/2019 before the Family Court, Attingal. Hence, she seeks for the transfer of the above two cases to the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram, which would be convenient for her and the children. Hence, the transfer petitions. 4. Heard; Sri.Rajkumar K.R., the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri.Latheesh Sebastian, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent fairly conceded that the respondent has no objection in the transfter petitions being allowed. 6. The law with respect of 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 ``` Tr.P.(C)No.279/2021& Tr.P.(Crl.)No.33/2021 ``` ``` -:7:- ``` 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)] **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 aforecited decisions, the uncontroverted pleadings and materials on record and the peculiar the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to exercise the discretionary powers of this Court under Sections 24 of the C.P.C. and 407 of the Cr.P.C. and order the transfer of the M.C.No.495/2019 and O.P.(GW) No.1768/2019 to the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. In the result, the transfer petitions are allowed in ``` Tr.P.(C)No.279/2021& Tr.P.(Crl.)No.33/2021 ``` ``` -:8:- ``` the following manner. - (i) Tr.P.(Crl.)No.33/2021 is allowed, by ordering the transfer of M.C.No.495/2019 from the Family Court, Attingal to the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. - (ii) Tr.P.(Crl.)No.279/2021 is allowed, by ordering the transfer of O.P. (GW)No.1768/2019 from the Family Court, Attingal279 to the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. - (iii) The parties would be at liberty to move the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram, and seek for consolidation and joint trial of the proceedings between them. - (iv) The Registry shall forthwith forward a copy of this common order to the Family Court, Attingal, with instructions to transmit the records in M.C.No.495/2019 and O.P. (GW).No.1768/2019 to the Family Court, ``` Tr.P.(C)No.279/2021& Tr.P.(Crl.)No.33/2021 ``` ``` -:9:- ``` Thiruvananthapuram. - (v) The Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram shall, immediately on receipt of the records in M.C.No.495/2019 and O.P. (GW).No.1768/2019, issue notice to the parties for their appearance. Sd/- ## **C.S.DIAS,JUDGE** DST/17.06.22 //True copy/ P.A.To Judge ``` Tr.P.(C)No.279/2021& Tr.P.(Crl.)No.33/2021 ``` ``` -:10:- ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF TR.P(C) 279/2021`** ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A1TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION OP(GW) NO.1768/2019 PENDING BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, ATTINGAL. ``` ``` Tr.P.(C)No.279/2021& Tr.P.(Crl.)No.33/2021 ``` ``` -:11:- ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF TR.P(CRL.) 33/2021`** ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A 1TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION MC NO.495 OF 2019 PENDING BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT ATTINGAL DATED 23.11.2019. ```