High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeTransfer petition allowed; OP 1655/2021 transfe...

Rajimsha P.P. v. RIYAS and KUNCHIMUHAMMED P P

Case / Petition Number:Tr.P.(C) No. 60/2022
Neutral Citation:/null

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • C.S. Dias
Judgment Date
2022-06-08
Court Decision / Holding
The transfer petition is allowed. The court transfers OP No.1655/2021 from the Family Court, Ernakulam to the Family Court, Tirur. The Registry shall transmit the records to the Family Court, Tirur, and the Tirur Court shall issue notices to the parties for appearance.
Final Disposition
Transfer petition allowed; OP 1655/2021 transferred from Family Court, Ernakulam to Family Court, Tirur; Records to be transmitted and notices to be issued to the parties for appearance; Official neutral citation: null

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • RAJIMSHA P.P

Respondents

  • RIYAS, S/O. ABDUL RAHIM
  • KUNCHIMUHAMMED P P, S/O. MAMMIKUTTY

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Jamsheed Hafiz
  • • K.K. Nesna

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Sivaram R. Menon

Case Synopsis & Summary

This transfer petition (Tr.P(C) No.60 of 2022) arises under Section 24 CPC seeking transfer of O.P.1655/2021 from the Family Court, Ernakulam, to the Family Court, Tirur, in a matrimonial dispute between Rajimsha P.P (wife) and respondents RIYAS and KUNCHIMUHAMMED P P. The petitioner alleges matrimonial cruelty and destitution, and that she resides with her natal family 128 km away from Ernakulam, with no person to accompany her to court, making it practically impossible to defend the proceedings. O.P.1655/2021 seeks return of gold ornaments and money, while the petitioner has already filed O.P.654/2021 before the Tirur Family Court seeking divorce; she also filed M.C. No.166/2021 under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act. The first respondent counters that Annexure-A2 is a counterblast to Annexure-A1 and alleges harassment; he points to a police FIR against him under IPC 498A. The court notes that M.C.166/2021 is pending at Tirur, and that the convenience of the woman and hardship of the petitioner must govern, supported by Supreme Court precedents. It exercises discretionary jurisdiction under Section 24 CPC, finds that hardship weighs in favour of the petitioner due to ongoing proceedings in Tirur, and transfers OP 1655/2021 to Tirur with directions to transmit records and issue notices.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005Section 498A IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Convenience of the woman and children as the essential criterion for transfer of matrimonial disputes.
  • The law is not res integra as per the cited Supreme Court decisions; focus is on convenience and hardship rather than mere technicalities.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends extreme hardship in defending O.P.1655/2021 at Ernakulam due to a distance exceeding 128 km, destitution, lack of any chaperone, and the petitioner residing with her natal family. She emphasizes that Annexure-A2 was filed as a necessary step to contest Annexure-A1 and that Tirur already hosts related proceedings (M.C. No.166/2021). The prolonged travel and absence of support place her at a severe disadvantage, and transferring to the Tirur Family Court would facilitate her participation and defense while aligning with the ongoing Tirur proceedings.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondent submits that Annexure-A2 is a counter-blast to Annexure-A1 and that the petition is harassing and frivolous. He cites the FIR under IPC 498A and argues that hardship to the petitioner is not a criterion for transfer. He contends that the transfer would be unnecessary and inconvenient for him since he must defend in Tirur, where a related proceeding is pending, and seeks dismissal of the transfer petition."},

Cited Precedents (5)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Sumitha Singh v. Kumar Sanjay and another(2001) 10 SCC 41PositiveSC decisions establish that the convenience of the woman and children is paramount in transfers of matrimonial disputes.
Mona Aresh Goel v. Aresh Satya Goel(2000) 9 SCC 255PositiveAffirms the principle of prioritizing the woman’s convenience in related proceedings.
Vaishali Shridhar Jagtap v. Shridhar Vishwanath JagtapAIR 2016 SC 3584PositiveSC reaffirmation of transfer principles based on conveniences of the wife.
Santhini v. Vijaya Venkatesh2017 (4) KLT 415 (SC)PositiveSC endorses balancing convenience and hardship in matrimonial transfers.
Valsal Nisha v. Rajesh Soman Nair2020 (8) KLR 475PositiveCited as part of cumulative jurisprudence favoring transfer when it serves the petitioner’s convenience.

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 Rajimsha P.P. v. RIYAS and KUNCHIMUHAMMED P P 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 ``` ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 8[TH] DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 18TH JYAISHTA, 1944 ``` ## `TR.P(C) NO. 60 OF 2022` ``` IN OP NO.1655/2021 OF FAMILY COURT,ERNAKULAM ``` ## `PETITIONER/1ST RESPONDENT:` ``` RAJIMSHA P.P, AGED 25 YEARS, D/O. KUNHI MUHAMMED, PUTHENPEEDIYEKKAL (H) KONNALLUR, ANANTHAVOOR P.O, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 676 301 ``` ``` BY ADVS.JAMSHEED HAFIZ K.K.NESNA ``` ## `RESPONDENTS/ PETITIONER AND 2ND RESPONDENT:` ``` 1RIYAS, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O. ABDUL RAHIM, SHINE VILLA, HRA 18, KURUPPUMCHIRA ROAD, THANNIKKAL, ELAMAKKARA P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 682 026 ``` ``` 2KUNCHIMUHAMMED P P, S/O. MAMMIKUTTY, PUTHENPEEDIYEKKAL HOUSE, KONNALUR, ANANTHAVOOR P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 676 301 ``` ## `BY ADV SIVARAM R.MENON` ``` THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` Tr.P.(C)No.60/2022 ``` ``` -:2:- ``` Dated this the 8[th] day of June,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. No.1655/2021 (Annexure-A2), from the Family Court, Enakulam, to the Family Court, Tirur. 2. The petitioner’s case, in brief, in the memorandum of transfer petition is that; she is the wife of the first respondent. The second respondent is the father of the petitioner. The first respondent has filed Annexure-A1, seeking a decree for return of gold ornaments and money. Due to the matrimonial cruelty that was meted out on the petitioner, she was constrained to file O.P.No.654/2021(Annexure-A1) before the Family Court, Tirur, seeking a decree for divorce. She also filed M.C.No.166/2021 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Tirur, under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. In the meantime, the first respondent has filed ``` Tr.P.(C)No.60/2022 ``` ``` -:3:- ``` Annexure-A2, seeking a decree for return of money and gold ornaments from the petitioner and her father. The petitioner is residing with her parents in her natal home. She is a destitute woman with no means to maintain herself. The distance between the residence and the Family Court, Ernakulam, is more than 128 Kms. There is no person to chaperone her from Tirur to Ernakulam. The petitioner would find it extremely difficult to defend Annexure-A2. On the other hand, the first respondent would have to necessarily appear before the courts at Tirur to defend Annexure-A1 and the proceeding before the learned Magistrate. Therefore, it would not be inconvenient to him, if Annexure-A2 is transferred to the Family Court, Tirur. Hence, the transfer petition. 3. The first respondent has filed a counter affidavit, refuting the allegations in the transfer petition. He has, inter alia, contended that Annexure-A2 has been filed by the petitioner only as a counter blast to the proceedings initiated by him. M.C.No.166/2021 is ``` Tr.P.(C)No.60/2022 ``` ``` -:4:- ``` frivolous and filed only to harass the first respondent. In the midnight of February, 2021, two persons had gone to the house of the first respondent and threatened him with dire consequences, if he failed to settle the matrimonial disputes. Even though the first respondent has preferred complaints before the Police, no case has been registered against him. On the contrary, the petitioner has got a First Information Report(FIR) registered against him for an offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The hardship projected by the petitioner is not a criteria to transfer the case. Hence, the transfer petition may be dismissed. 5. Heard; Sri. Jamsheed Hafiz, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Sivaram R. Menon, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent. 6. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner has already instituted Annexure-A1 before the Family Court, Tirur. The first respondent has not sought for the ``` Tr.P.(C)No.60/2022 ``` ``` -:5:- ``` transfer of the proceedings. Even though it is contended that Annexure-A1 has already been decreed, it is seen that M.C.No.166/2021 is still pending before the learned Magistrate at Tirur. Therefore, necessarily, the first respondent would have to go to Tirur to contest the proceeding there. 7. On an appreciation of the comparative hardship between the petitioner and the first respondent, I am of the definite view that it is hardship of the petitioner that has to be given due weightage. 8. 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 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.** ``` Tr.P.(C)No.60/2022 ``` ``` -:6:- ``` **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. 9. In the light of the pleadings and materials on record, the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly, since M.C.166/2021 is already pending before the competent Magistrate at Tirur, and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the afore-cited decisions, I am inclined to exercise the discretionary powers of this Court under Section 24 of the C.P.C. In the result, I allow the transfer petition by ordering the transfer of O.P. No.1655/2021 from the Family Court, Ernakulam to the Family Court, Tirur. The Registry shall forward a copy of this order to the Family Court, Ernakulam, with instructions to forthwith transmit the records in O.P. No.1655/2021 to the Family ``` Tr.P.(C)No.60/2022 ``` ``` -:7:- ``` Court, Tirur. The Family Court, Tirur shall, immediately on the receipt of the records in the above case, issue notice to the parties for their appearance. Sd/- ## **C.S.DIAS,JUDGE** DST/08.06.22 //True copy/ P.A.To Judge ``` Tr.P.(C)No.60/2022 ``` ``` -:8:- ``` ## `APPENDIX` ``` PETITIONER’S ANNEXURE: ``` ``` ANNEXURE A1A TRUE COPY OF THE OP NO. 654/2021 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, TIRUR DATED 03-09-2021 ``` ``` ANNEXURE A2A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT ERNAKULAM IN O.P 1655/2021 DATED 02-08-2021 ``` ``` RESPONDENT’S EXHIBITS: ``` ``` ANNEXURE R1COPY OF THE POLICE COMPLAINT GIVEN BY ME BEFORE THE ELAMAKKARA POLICE STATION ``` ``` ANNEXURE R2RECEIPT ISSUED BY ELAMAKKARA POLICE STATION ANNEXURE R3COPY OF THE FIR NO.470/2021 OF KALPAKANCHERY POLICE STATION. ```