Rajimsha P.P. v. RIYAS and KUNCHIMUHAMMED P P
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
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 Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sumitha Singh v. Kumar Sanjay and another | (2001) 10 SCC 41 | Positive | SC 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 255 | Positive | Affirms the principle of prioritizing the woman’s convenience in related proceedings. |
| Vaishali Shridhar Jagtap v. Shridhar Vishwanath Jagtap | AIR 2016 SC 3584 | Positive | SC reaffirmation of transfer principles based on conveniences of the wife. |
| Santhini v. Vijaya Venkatesh | 2017 (4) KLT 415 (SC) | Positive | SC endorses balancing convenience and hardship in matrimonial transfers. |
| Valsal Nisha v. Rajesh Soman Nair | 2020 (8) KLR 475 | Positive | Cited as part of cumulative jurisprudence favoring transfer when it serves the petitioner’s convenience. |
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 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.