High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeTransfer petitions disposed: TR.P(C) 103/2023 d...

Renjith B.R v. Sathya Dhara Vasudhasree - TR.P(C) Nos. 103/2023 & 556/2022, High Court of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:TR.P(C) NO. 103 OF 2023; TR.P(C) NO. 556 OF 2022

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • C. S. Dias
Judgment Date
2023-03-28
Court Decision / Holding
The petitions are disposed of as follows: (i) TR.P(C) 103/2023 is dismissed; (ii) TR.P(C) 556/2022 is allowed by transferring O.P.184/2022 from the Family Court, Chavara, to the Family Court, Alappuzha; (iii) the husband may apply for dispensation of personal appearance and/or use video conferencing, and may appoint an agent if necessary; (iv) the Family Court, Alappuzha, shall consider such applications compassionately and insist on personal appearance only if necessary; (v) the parties may move for consolidation and joint trial; (vi) the registry shall transmit Annexure-A4 records to Alappuzha; (vii) Alappuzha Court shall post the case along with Annexure-A2 on receipt of records. The order also directs transmission of records to facilitate consolidation of proceedings.
Final Disposition
Transfer petitions disposed: TR.P(C) 103/2023 dismissed; TR.P(C) 556/2022 allowed by transferring OP 184/2022 from Chavara to Alappuzha; dispensation of personal appearance, video conferencing, or representation by agent permitted; records to be transmitted; consolidation of related matters contemplated; Alappuzha Family Court to proceed with consolidated matters.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • RENJITH B.R
  • SATHYA DHARA VASUDHASREE.K.

Respondents

  • SATHYA DHARA VASUDHASREE
  • RENJITH B.R

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Arun Babu
  • • J.G. Syamnath
  • • R. Ratheesh

Counsels for Respondents

  • • J.G. Syamnath
  • • Arun Babu

Case Synopsis & Summary

Common Order in TR.P(C) Nos. 103/2023 and 556/2022 before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, delivered by Justice C.S. Dias on 28 March 2023. The petitions, filed by Renjith B.R. (husband) and Sathya Dhara Vasudhasree (wife), seek transfers of Family Court proceedings between Alappuzha and Chavara. In TR.P(C) 103/2023, the husband seeks to transfer OP 748/2022 (Family Court, Alappuzha) to Family Court, Chavara, citing a benchmark disability and impracticality of travel. In TR.P(C) 556/2022, the wife seeks transfer of OP 184/2022 (Family Court, Chavara) to Alappuzha, arguing the wife’s permanent residence in Alappuzha and the heavy travel burden from Alappuzha to Chavara; she also highlights the husband’s employment in Kollam and alleged extravagance. Both petitions were heard together on 28.03.2023. The court cites a lineage of Supreme Court judgments emphasizing the welfare and convenience of the wife and children in transfer decisions, and notes that the husband’s hardship can be mitigated through dispensation of personal appearance, video conferencing, or representation by an agent. The final order dismisses TR.P(C) 103/2023 and allows TR.P(C) 556/2022, transferring OP 184/2022 from Chavara to Alappuzha, with directions for consolidation, potential dispensation, and transmission of records to Alappuzha.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Convenience of the woman and children to be given preference in transfer of cases (doctrine; supported by catena of Supreme Court decisions)
  • 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
  • Shridhar Jagtap v. Shridhar Vishwanath Jagtap, AIR 2016 SC 3584
  • Santhini v. Vijaya Venkatesh, 2017 (4) KLT 415 (SC)
  • N.C.V. Aiswarya v. A.S. Sharavana Karthik Sha, 2022 (5) KHC 185
  • Valsal Nisha v. Rajesh Soman Nair, 2020 (8) KLR 475

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicants contended that the transfer petitions should be allowed to alleviate travel burden and consolidate related proceedings. In TR.P(C) 103/2023, Renjith B.R., who is stated to have a benchmark disability prior to marriage and is employed in the Co‑operative Department at Kollam, argued that Annexure-A2 (O.P. 748/2022) should be transferred from Alappuzha to Chavara so he can participate via dispensation of personal appearance, video conferencing, or through representation by an agent. In TR.P(C) 556/2022, Sathya Dhara Vasudhasree argued for transferring Annexure-A4 (O.P. 184/2022) from Chavara to Alappuzha on grounds that she resides in Alappuzha, that travel to Chavara is lengthy (approximately 75 km one way) and that the husband’s employment and conduct make consolidation desirable to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argued in essence for transferring the matters in light of the welfare of the parties and the practicalities involved. They stressed that the wife’s counsel emphasised her residence and travel burden in Alappuzha to justify transfer, while the husband’s side stressed his disability and the possibility of dispensation or video conferencing to mitigate personal appearance. The court was urged to adopt a welfare-oriented approach, disproportionately favouring the applicant who would be burdened by travel, and to consolidate all related proceedings to avoid conflicting decisions.

Cited Precedents (7)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Sumitha Sing v. Kumar Sanjay and another(2001) 10 SCC 41PositiveCited to support preference for the convenience of the wife and children in transfer of cases.
Mona Aresh Goel v. Aresh Satya Goel(2000) 9 SCC 255PositiveCited as authority endorsing prioritization of the complainant spouse’s convenience.
Vaishali Shr... v. Shridhar Vishwanath JagtapAIR 2016 SC 3584PositiveCited for the principle of prioritizing the wife’s convenience in transfer cases.
Shridhar Jagtap v. Shridhar Vishwanath JagtapAIR 2016 SC 3584PositiveSame doctrinal principle referenced to support transfer in light of welfare considerations.
Santhini v. Vijaya Venkatesh2017 (4) KLT 415 (SC)PositiveCited for the welfare-centric approach in transfer, especially regarding family court considerations.
N.C.V. Aiswarya v. A.S. Sharavana Karthik Sha2022 (5) KHC 185PositiveCited as supportive precedent on transfer and convenience balancing.
Valsal Nisha v. Rajesh Soman Nair2020 (8) KLR 475PositiveCited to underscore preference for convenient adjudication in family matters.

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 Renjith B.R v. Sathya Dhara Vasudhasree - TR.P(C) Nos. 103/2023 & 556/2022, High Court of Kerala and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

``` TR.P(C)s. 103/23 & 556/22 ``` 1 ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** # **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS TUESDAY, THE 28[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1945 ``` ``` TR.P(C) NO. 103 OF 2023 OPHMA 748/2022 OF FAMILY COURT, ALAPPUZHA ``` ``` PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: ``` ``` RENJITH.B.R AGED 42 YEARS S/O BRAHMAVRIDHAN, RANJITH BHAVANAM, PANMANA KOLLAM, PIN - 691583 BY ADV ARUN BABU ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:`** ``` SATHYA DHARA VASUDHASREE AGED 35 YEARS D/O RADHAKRISHNAN,KALATHIL VADAKKETHIL HOUSE, POONTHOPPU WARD, AVALOOKKUNNU P.O, ALAPUZHA, PIN - 688006 ``` ``` BY ADV J.G.SYAMNATH ``` ``` THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.03.2023, ALONG WITH Tr.P(C).556/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` TR.P(C)s. 103/23 & 556/22 ``` 2 ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS ``` ``` TUESDAY, THE 28[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1945 ``` ``` TR.P(C) NO. 556 OF 2022 ``` ## **`OP 184/2022 OF FAMILY COURT, CHAVARA PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:`** ``` SATHYA DHARA VASUDHASREE.K., AGED 35 YEARS D/O. V. RADHAKRISHNAN, KALATHIL VADAKKETHIL HOUSE,' POONTHOPPU WARD, AVALOOKKUNNU P.O., ALAPPUZHA 688 006. BY ADVS. J.G.SYAMNATH R.RATHEESH ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:`** ``` RENJITH B.R. AGED 42 YEARS S/O. K.M. BRAHMAVRIDHAN, RENJITH BHAVANAM, MULLAKKERY, CHAVARA, PANMANA P.O., KOLLAM 691 583. BY ADV ARUN BABU ``` ``` THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.03.2023, ALONG WITH Tr.P(C).103/2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` TR.P(C)s. 103/23 & 556/22 ``` 3 ## **COMMON ORDER** As the transfer petitions are between same parties, they are being disposed of by this common order. Renjith B.R. (husband) has filed Tr.P(C) No.103/2023 against Sathyadhara Vasudhasree (wife) to transfer O.P.No.748/2022 from the Family Court, Alappuzha to the Family Court, Chavara. The wife has filed Tr.P(C) No.556/2022 against the husband, to transfer O.P.No.184/2022 from the Family Court, Chavara, to the Family Court, Alappuzha. For the sake of convenience, the parties and the pleadings are referred to as per the status in Tr.P(C) No.103 of 2023, which is treated as the leading case. 2. The husband’s case is that he is married to the wife on 05.02.2020. They are issueless. The husband is suffering from benchmark disability as evidenced by Annexure-A1. The marital relationship is strained. The wife has filed O.P.(HMA) No.748/2022 (Annexure-A2) and M.C. No.59/2022 (Annexure-A3) before the Family **`TR.P(C)s. 103/23 & 556/22`** 4 Court, Alappuzha, against the husband, for a decree of divorce and an order of maintenance, respectively. The husband has filed O.P.No.184/2022 (Annexure-A4) before the Family Court, Chavara, against the wife, for a decree for return of gold ornaments and other consequential reliefs. Due to the disability of the husband, he is unable to travel from Alappuzha to Chavara to contest Annexures-A2 and A3. Therefore, Annexure-A2 may be transferred. 3. The wife has filed Tr.P(C) No.556/2022 for the transfer of Annexure-A4 on the ground that she is a lady and is permanently residing in Alappuzha. The husband is employed in the Co-operative Department, Kollam, and is leading a life of extravagance. It is difficult for the wife to travel from Alappuzha to Chavara, which is 75 Kms on one side. Therefore, Annexure-A4 may be transferred. 4. Heard; Sri. Arun Babu, the learned counsel appearing for the husband and Sri.J.G.Syamnath, the learned counsel appearing for the wife. **`TR.P(C)s. 103/23 & 556/22`** 5 5. The question is, which transfer petition is to be allowed. 6. The husband’s case is that, as he is suffering from benchmark disability, he is not in a position to travel to Alappuzha. Hence, Annexure-A2 may be transferred. The wife’s case is that the husband is employed, he is appearing before the Family Court, Chavara and it is difficult for her to travel from Alappuzha to Chavara. 7. On an appreciation of the pleadings and materials on record, it is seen that the husband has benchmark disability even prior to their marriage. Indisputably, the husband is employed in the Cooperative Department at Kollam. It is at his instance that Annexure-A4 has been filed before the Family Court, Chavara. 8. It is well settled in a catena of decisions 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**_ **`TR.P(C)s. 103/23 & 556/22`** 6 _**Shridhar Jagtap V. Shridhar Vishwanath Jagtap**_ [AIR 2016 SC 3584], _**Santhini V. Vijaya Venkatesh**_ [2017 (4) KLT 415 (SC)], _**N.C.V. Aiswarya v. A.S. Sharavana Karthik Sha**_ [2022(5) KHC 185] and _**Valsal Nisha v. Rajesh Soman Nair**_ [2020(8) KLR 475], that the convenience of the woman and children has to be given preference and weightage, while ordering the transfer of a case from one Court to another. 9. On an overall appreciation of the pleadings and materials on record and law on the point, I am of the view that the hardship of the husband can be redressed by permitting him to apply for the dispensation of his personal appearance and also to avail the video conferencing facility and if required, to permit him to appear through an agent. Hence, I am inclined to exercise the discretionary powers of this Court under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure in favour of the wife and order the transfer of AnnexureA4 to the Family Court, Alappuzha, so that all the cases between the parties can be consolidated and jointly ``` TR.P(C)s. 103/23 & 556/22 ``` 7 tried, which would save the precious judicial time, avoid conflict of decisions and multiplicity of proceedings. Resultantly, I dispose of the transfer petitions as follows: - (i) Tr.P.(C) No.103/2023 is dismissed. - (ii) Tr.P.(C) No.556/2022 is allowed by ordering the transfer of O.P.No.184/2022 from the Family Court, Chavara, to the Family Court, Alappuzha. - (iii) The husband would be at liberty to move the Family Court, Alappuzha, and seek for the dispensation of his personal appearance and to avail the video conferencing facility and, if required, and to appoint an agent to represent the case on his behalf. - (iv) The Family Court, Alappuzha, shall, if such an application is received, compassionately consider the application and shall insist for the personal appearance of the husband only if necessary. - (v) The parties will be at liberty to move the Family Court, Alappuzha, and seek for the consolidation and joint trial of all the cases between them. - (vi) The Registry shall forward a copy of this order to the Family Court, Chavara with instructions to forthwith transmit the records in Annexure-A4 to the Family Court, Alappuzha. - (vii) The Family Court, Alappuzha shall, immediately ``` TR.P(C)s. 103/23 & 556/22 ``` 8 on receipt of the records in Annexure-A4, post the case along with Annexure-A2. **Sd/-** ## **C.S.DIAS, JUDGE** okb/28.3.23 //True copy// P.S. to Judge **`TR.P(C)s. 103/23 & 556/22`** 9 ## **`APPENDIX OF TR.P(C) 556/2022`** ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1TRUE COPY OF THE OP (HMA), 748/2022 BEFORE THE FAMILYC COURT, ALAPPUZHA. Annexure A2TRUE COPY OF THE MC 59/2022 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, ALAPPUZHA. Annexure A3TRUE COPY OF THE OP 184/2022 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, CHAVARA. RESPONDENT ANNEXURES Annexure R1Disability certificate of wife dated 20/07/2014 ``` **`TR.P(C)s. 103/23 & 556/22`** 10 ## **`APPENDIX OF TR.P(C) 103/2023`** ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES AnnexureA1THE TRUE COPY OF THE DISABILITY CERTIFICATE DATED 20/07/2014 ISSUED FROM THE AA RAHIM MEMORIAL DISTRICT HOSPITAL AnnexureA2THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION IN OP (HMA ) 748/2022 DATED 06/07/2022 PENDING BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT ALAPUZHA AnnexureA3THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION IN MC 59/2022 DATED 22/07/2022 PENDING BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT ALAPUZHA AnnexureA4THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 08.06.2022 IN OP(OTHERS) 184/2022 , PENDING BEFORE FAMILY COURT CHAVARA AnnexureA5THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.03.2020 IN TRANSFER APPEAL(CIVIL) 1/2020 OF THIS COURT ```