Nasiya v. Sabu A
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
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 Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sumitha Sing v. Kumar Sanjay and another | (2001) 10 SCC 41 | Positive | Cited 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 255 | Positive | Affirms the welfare-based transfer principle in matrimonial matters. |
| Vaishali Shridhar Jagtap v. Shridhar Vishwanath Jagtap | AIR 2016 SC 3584 | Positive | Reinforces the convenience-of-women-and-children doctrine in transfer cases. |
| Santhini V. Vijaya Venkatesh | 2017 (4) KLT 415 (SC) | Positive | Used to substantiate the transfer principle for matrimonial disputes. |
| Valsal Nisha v. Rajesh Soman Nair | 2020 (8) KLR 475 | Positive | Supports the discretionary transfer framework in light of convenience and welfare. |
Diagnostic Tool
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.