High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2010-12-15Petition allowed

Remya M.K. v. Veettu E.

Case / Petition Number:Tr.P(C).No. 330 of 2010

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Thomas P. Joseph
Judgment Date: 2010-12-15
Court Decision / Holding: The transfer petition is allowed. O.P.848/2010 is withdrawn from the Family Court, Kozhikode, and directed to be transferred to the Family Court, Ernakulam. The transferee court shall fix dates for appearance with due notice to counsel; the related proceedings O.P.1779/2010 and M.C.275/2010 in Ernakulam shall be posted on the same dates as far as possible. Except when necessary, the respondent may appear through counsel. The decision aligns the petitioner’s residence and related proceedings with the appropriate forum to streamline adjudication and reduce hardship.
Final Disposition: Petition allowed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

REMYA M.K.

Respondents

VEETTU E.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri Shaji P. Chaly
• Smt.K.S.Sumitha
• Sri Abdul Jaleel A
• Smt.K.Jasmin Baby
• Sri.S.Gopakumar
• Sri.R.Sanjith
• Smt.H.Roshni
• Smt.Ligitta.G.Mathew

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri.P.S.Sreedharan Pillai
• Smt.C.G.Preetha
• Sri.T.K.Sandeep
• Sri.Arjun Sreedhar

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Transfer Petition (C) No. 330 of 2010, filed by Remya M.K., a divorced wife aged about 24, seeks transfer of O.P. No. 848/2010 from the Family Court Kozhikode to the Family Court Ernakulam. The petitioner, employed in a Call Centre in Ernakulam and residing there, argues that frequent travel to Kozhikode for hearings is impracticable and that she already has related proceedings—O.P. 1779/2010 for return of gold ornaments and M.C. 275/2010 for maintenance—being pursued in Ernakulam. The respondent, abroad and represented by his father, counters that the petitioner’s permanent residence is Naduvannur in Kozhikode district and that the transfer is unnecessary since O.P. 848/2010 concerns damages. It is contended that the Power of Attorney holder of the respondent can attend, and that the petitioner’s presence at Kozhikode is not indispensable. The High Court, citing Sumitha Singh v. Kumar Sanjay and Arti Rani v. Dharmendra Kumar Gupta, emphasizes that convenience of the wife is the paramount consideration in such transfers and that long travel would cause hardship. Balancing the factors, the court allows the transfer: O.P. 848/2010 is withdrawn from Kozhikode and transferred to Ernakulam; the transferee court will fix appearance dates and post related matters on the same dates, with appearance through counsel when necessary.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Convenience of the wife in transfer of matrimonial proceedings is a guiding principle.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner submits that she is a divorced wife aged about 24, currently residing and working in Ernakulam (a call centre job). She has pending proceedings in Ernakulam (O.P.1779/2010 for return of gold ornaments and M.C.275/2010). Frequent travel to Kozhikode for hearings in O.P.848/2010 is impractical; transfer to Ernakulam would consolidate related matters and reduce hardship. She argues that the convenience of the wife must be weighed, especially given her residence, employment, and existing filings in Ernakulam. The aim is efficient adjudication and avoidance of undue burden on the petitioner. Endorsing the jurisprudence that prioritizes convenience of the wife, the petitioner seeks transfer with appropriate directions for appearance and posting; she contends that counsel can represent her when personal appearance is unnecessary.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondent contests the transfer, arguing that the petitioner’s permanent residence is Naduvannur, Kozhikode District, and that the proceedings are not impeded by travel. The respondent, stationed abroad, is represented by his father. The respondent contends that O.P.848/2010 concerns damages and that the petitioner’s presence in Kozhikode is not strictly indispensable; power of attorney can attend. It is argued that forcing a transfer would disrupt the respondent’s defense schedule and that the petitioner’s ties to Kozhikode weigh against transfer. The respondent asserts that two pending matters in Ernakulam could be handled locally, and that the petitioner’s assertion of hardship lacks substantiation. Ultimately, it is urged that transfer may prejudice the respondent and that the current forum should be retained.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Sumitha Singh v. Kumar Sanjay and another	AIR 2002 SC 396	Positive	Cited to support the principle that convenience of the wife must be considered in transfer of matrimonial proceedings.
Arti Rani v. Dharmendra Kumar Gupta	[2008] 9 SCC 353	Positive	Cited to reinforce the convenience principle applying to divorced wives in transfer cases.

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 Remya M.K. v. Veettu E. 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 THOMAS P.JOSEPH** **WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH DECEMBER 2010 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA 1932** **Tr.P(C).No. 330 of 2010()** **------------------------OP.848/2010 of FAMILY COURT,KOZHIKODE** **....................** **PETITIONER:** **---------------------** **REMYA M.K, D/O.RAVINDRAN NAIR,AGED 24 YEARS, (NOW RESIDING AT THETTAYIL HOUSE,GREEN PARK, KARAPPAYI ROAD, NORTH KALAMASSRY PO,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT) KARUVANKANDY, NOCHAD, NADUVANNUR,KOZHIKODE.** **BY ADVS. SRI.SHAJI P.CHALY, SMT.K.S.SUMITHA, SRI.ABDUL JALEEL.A, SMT.K.JASMIN BABY, SRI.S.GOPAKUMAR, SRI.R.SANJITH, SMT.H.ROSHNI, SMT.LIGITTA.G.MATHEW.** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** **---------------------------** **VEETTU E, S/O.SANKARA KURUP, AGED 32 YEARS, THANDRAPPALLI, KURIKKILAD, VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE, PRESENTLY WORKING AT J-RAY METERO MOTT, P.O.BOX,NO.18180.,BADGA NO.308050, GABELANI, WELDING DEPARTMENT, DUBAI - UAE.** **BY ADVS. SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI,** **SMT.C.G.PREETHA, SRI.T.K.SANDEEP, SRI.ARJUN SREEDHAR.** **THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Kss** ## **THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.** **==================================== Tr.P(C) NO.330 of 2010 ==================================== Dated this the 15[th] day of December, 2010** ## **O R D E R** This petition is filed by the divorced wife aged about 24 years for transfer of O.P. No.848 of 2010 from Family Court, Kozhikode to Family Court, Ernakulam. That is a petition filed the former husband for damages which according to the learned counsel for petitioner takes in value of gold ornaments allegedly given by the former husband to petitioner while they were living together as husband and wife. Petitioner though a resident of Naduvannur in Kozhikode District, claimed to be working in a Call Centre at Ernakulam and is residing in Ernakulam in connection ## **Tr.P(C) No.330 of 2010** -: 2 :- with that employment. She has already filed O.P. No.1779 of 2010 for return of gold ornaments and M.C. No.275 of 2010 claiming maintenance from her former husband, both in Family Court, Ernakulam. Petitioner states that since she is residing at Ernakulam in connection with her employment is unable to travel all the distance from Ernakulam to Family Court, Kozhikode to contest the case pending in that court. Petition is opposed by the respondent on various grounds. It is contended by respondent that petitioner is staying with a person with whom she had a previous marriage and that her permanent residence is at Naduvannur in Kozhikode District and ## **Tr.P(C) No.330 of 2010** -: 3 :- since O.P. No.848 of 2010 is being one for damages presence of petitioner at the every now and then in Family Court, Kozhikode is not required. It is also contended that since respondent is working Abroad he is represented by his father who also finds it difficult to travel all the distance from Kozhikode to Family Court, Ernakulam to contest the case. In the circumstances request for transfer is resisted. According to the petitioner in O.P. No.848 of 2010 there is a claim for damages which includes value of gold ornaments allegedly given to the petitioner during the period they were living together. In O.P. No.1779 of 2010 filed by the petitioner in Family Court, Ernakulam prayer is for return of gold ## **Tr.P(C) No.330 of 2010** -: 4 :- ornaments. There appears to be some common factor between the claims in the two cases. Even otherwise two cases filed by petitioner are pending in Family Court, Ernakulam and those cases are being contested by the respondent. Till now there is no request for transfer of those cases to Family Court, Kozhikode by the respondent on account of any inconvenience or difficulty of Power of Attorney holder of the respondent. The mere fact that petitioner is a permanent resident of Naduvannur in Kozhikode District is not by itself a ground to reject the request for transfer since it is not disputed that she is now working in a Call Centre at Ernakulam. ## **Tr.P(C) No.330 of 2010** -: 5 :- The Supreme Court in **Sumitha Singh v. Kumar** **Sanjay and another** (AIR 2002 SC 396) and **Arti Rani v.** **Dharmendra Kumar Gupta** ([2008] 9 SCC 353) has stated that while considering request for transfer of matrimonial proceedings convenience of the wife has to be looked into. That principle must apply in the case of divorced wife also. Petitioner is aged about 24 years and if O.P. No.848 of 2010 continues to be pending in Family Court, she had to travel a long distance. Moreover it is also convenient for all the parties if cases are tried and disposed of by the same court. In these circumstances I am inclined to think that the request of petitioner is to be allowed also **Tr.P(C) No.330 of 2010** -: 6 :- taking into account the weight of comparative hardship of petitioner. Resultantly, petition is allowed in the following lines: (i) O.P.No.848 of 2010 pending in Family Court, Kozhikode is withdrawn from that court and made over to Family Court, Ernakulam. (ii) The transferor court while transmitting records of the case to the transferee court shall fix the date for appearance of parties in the transferee court with due intimation to the counsel on both sides. (iii) Family Court, Ernakulam shall ensure that O.P. No.848 of 2010 (transferred to that court), O.P. No.1779 of 2010 and M.C. No.275 of 2010 (pending in that court) are posted as far as possible ## **Tr.P(C) No.330 of 2010** -: 7 :- on the same dates. (iv) It is made clear that except when physical presence of respondent/Power of Attorney holder in the transferee court is necessary he can appear through counsel. ## **THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE.** vsv