High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2024-03-22Transfer petition 903/2023 allowed (OP225/2023 ...

Saranya Sasi v. Rahul K.M.

Case / Petition Number:Tr.P.(C.) Nos.903 of 2023 & 146 of 2024

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C. Jayachandran
Judgment Date: 2024-03-22
Court Decision / Holding: Tr.P.(C.) Nos.903 of 2023 & 146 of 2024 disposed: Tr.P.(C.) No.903/2023 allowed; transfer of O.P.225/2023 from Irinjalakuda to the Family Court, Pala; Tr.P.(C.) No.146/2024 dismissed; records to be transmitted to the transferee court forthwith.
Final Disposition: Transfer petition 903/2023 allowed (OP225/2023 transferred to Family Court, Pala); Transfer petition 146/2024 dismissed; records to be transmitted; husband’s POA concern not a ground for transfer.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Saranya Sasi
Rahul K.M
Mani K.R
Sindhu.P.M

Respondents

Rahul K.M
Saranya Sasi

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• C.R.Vinod Kumar
• Vinu Chand
• Anil Kumar C.R.

Counsels for Respondents

• Sunil N
• Nikhil Berny

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a pair of Transfer Petition (Civil) Nos. 903 of 2023 and 146 of 2024 filed in the Kerala High Court, Ernakulam, by the parties to a matrimonial dispute seeking transfer of proceedings between Family Courts. Tr.P.(C.) No.903/2023, moved by the wife, seeks transfer of O.P.225/2023 from the Family Court, Irinjalakuda, to the Family Court at Pala, on the ground of convenience since she resides within Pala’s jurisdiction and to consolidate with OP 516/2023 (gold ornaments) pending at Pala. Tr.P.(C.) No.146/2024, moved by the husband, seeks transfer of O.P.516/2023 from Pala to Irinjalakuda, citing his employment abroad and the involvement of his Power of Attorney (POA) holder, who is aging and ailing, in the proceedings. The court, after hearing both sides, held that the wife’s convenience is a relevant factor in determining the proper forum for matrimonial matters, and relied on the Supreme Court’s catena of decisions including N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha (AIR 2022 SC 4318) to support this proposition. However, it rejected the husband’s argument that the POA’s inconvenience justifies transferring the matter, stating the POA’s issue is not a valid ground and can be managed by dispensing with his physical presence when necessary. Consequently, Tr.P.C.903/2023 was allowed, transferring OP225/2023 to Pala; Tr.P.C.146/2024 was dismissed. The records are to be transmitted to the transferee court forthwith.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Convenience of the wife is a factor to be weighed in determining the forum for matrimonial matters.
Inconvenience of Power of Attorney holder is not a ground to transfer; alternate arrangements may be made.
N.C.V.Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha (AIR 2022 SC 4318) (cited to support forum-convenience doctrine)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The wife (Tr.P(C).903/2023) seeks transfer of OP225/2023 from Irinjalakuda to Pala on the ground of her residence within the Pala jurisdiction and to consolidate with OP516/2023 at Pala; the husband (Tr.P(C).146/2024) argues for transfer to Irinjalakuda due to his abroad employment and the involvement of his elderly POA holder in proceedings, asserting that his convenience should be favored. The court is urged to consider the wife’s convenience as a decisive factor in forum selection for matrimonial matters and to deem POA-related inconvenience as insufficient grounds for transfer. It is argued that the locality difference and the pendency of OP516/2023 at Pala support transfer for the wife, while the husband’s grounds are weakened by the need to allow alternate arrangements for POA presence if needed; Supreme Court precedent is invoked to justify the forum-choice doctrine.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that the fundamental principle is to not transfer on grounds of convenience unless clearly justified; the husband’s plea hinges on foreign employment and POA complications, but the court is urged to avoid transferring away from natural jurisdiction simply due to POA inconvenience; the respondents emphasize that the POA issues cannot trump the normal jurisdiction and that the petitioner-husband’s inconvenience should not drive the transfer; accordingly, the court should refrain from transferring OP516/2023 from Pala to Irinjalakuda, and should decline to transfer OP225/2023 if not compelling.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
N.C.V.Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha	AIR 2022 SC 4318	Positive	The court relies on this decision to endorse the principle that the convenience of the wife is a relevant factor in deciding the forum for matrimonial 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 Saranya Sasi v. Rahul K.M. 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. JAYACHANDRAN ``` ``` FRIDAY, THE 22[ND] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 2ND CHAITHRA, 1946 ``` ## `TR.P(C) NO. 903 OF 2023` ``` OP NO.225 OF 2023 OF FAMILY COURT, IRINJALAKUDA ``` ## `PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENT:` ``` SARANYA SASI AGED 26 YEARS D/O.SASI, W/O.RAHUL.K.M., ILLICKAL HOUSE, MARANGATTUPALLY DESOM, MARANGATTUPALLYP.O., KURICHITHANAM VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT., PIN - 686635 BY ADVS. C.R.VINOD KUMAR VINUCHAND ANILKUMAR C.R. ``` ``` RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER: ``` ``` RAHUL.K.M. AGED 29 YEARS S/O. MONEY.K.R., KOODARATHIL HOUSE, MADAYIKONAM DESOM, MADAYIKONAM.P.O., MADAYIKONAM VILLAGE, IRIJALAKUDA TALUK, TRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680712 BY ADVS. SUNIL N NIKHIL BERNY(K/674/2014) ``` ``` THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.03.2024, ALONG WITH Tr.P(C).146/2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` Tr.P.(C.) Nos.903 of 2023 & 146 of 2024 ``` 2 ``` IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ``` ## `PRESENT` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 22[ND] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 2ND CHAITHRA, 1946 ``` ## `TR.P(C) NO. 146 OF 2024` ``` OP NO.516 OF 2023 OF FAMILY COURT, PALA ``` ## `PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENTS:` ``` 1RAHUL K.M. AGED 29 YEARS S/O MANI,KOODARATHI (H), MADAYIKONAM, IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR REP BY POWER OF ATTORNEY, SINDHU, AGED 58 YEARS, W/O MANI,KOODARATHI (H), MADAYIKONAM,IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR, PIN - 680712 2MANI K.R AGED 60 YEARS S/O RAMAN, KOODARATHI (H),MADAYIKONAM, IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR, PIN - 680712 3SINDHU.P.M AGED 55 YEARS W/O MANI,KOODARATHI (H), MADAYIKONAM,IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR, PIN - 680712 BY ADVS. N.SUNIL NIKHIL BERNY ``` ## `RESPONDENT(S)/ PETITIONER:` ``` 1SARANYA SASI AGED 26 YEARS D/O SASI.V,ILLICKAL (H), MARANGATTUPALLY, MARANGATTUPALLY P.O, MEENACHAL, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686635 ``` ``` THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.03.2024, ALONG WITH Tr.P(C).903/2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` Tr.P.(C.) Nos.903 of 2023 & 146 of 2024 ``` 3 **C.JAYACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------------------Tr.P.(C.) Nos.903 of 2023 & 146 of 2024 ------------------------------------------------Dated this the 22[nd] day of March, 2024** ## **ORDER** Both the wife and husband seek transfer of matrimonial cases to suit their convenience. Transfer Petition first above referred is one preferred by the wife seeking transfer of O.P. No.225/2023 pending before the Family Court, Irinjalakuda to the Family Court, Pala. The Transfer Petition second above referred seeks transfer of O.P. No.516/2023 pending before the Family Court, Pala to the Family Court, Irinjalakuda. O.P. No.225/2023 is preferred by the husband seeking dissolution of the marriage, whereas O.P. No.516/2023 is one preferred by the wife, seeking return of gold ornaments. ``` Tr.P.(C.) Nos.903 of 2023 & 146 of 2024 ``` **==> picture [7 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** 2. The first Transfer Petition is preferred essentially on the ground of convenience of the petitioner/wife, who is residing within the jurisdictional limit of the Family Court, Pala. As an additional ground, learned counsel would point out that O.P. No.516/2023 for return of gold ornaments is also pending consideration before the Family Court, Pala. 3. Per contra, the ground raised by the petitioner/husband in Tr.P.(C.) No.146/2024 is that, the petitioner is employed abroad and the matter is being prosecuted/defended by his Power of Attorney holder/mother, who is aged and ailing. It was also pointed out that in O.P. No.516/2023 pending before the Family Court, Pala, the Power of Attorney holder/mother is also a party. 4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on both sides, this Court cannot endorse the stand of the husband. It is settled that the convenience of the wife is surely a matter, to be taken into account, while ``` Tr.P.(C.) Nos.903 of 2023 & 146 of 2024 ``` **==> picture [7 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** fixing the forum for adjudication of matrimonial matters, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of decision including the one in N.C.V.Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha [AIR 2022 SC 4318]. That apart, inconvenience of the Power of Attorney holder is no reason to transfer a case from the Court of natural jurisdiction to another Court. If the Power of Attorney holder has any inconvenience, it is to the respondent/husband to make alternate arrangements. The transfer sought for by the husband vide Tr.P.(C.) No.146/2024 is liable to be disallowed, also for the reason that the petitioner is working abroad and therefore, his convenience hardly matters. 5. All what can be directed in the context of the ground espoused by the husband is that, the physical appearance of his Power of Attorney holder/mother, who is allegedly aged and ailing, can be dispensed with, except on occasions where such presence is absolutely inevitable to proceed with the matter. ``` Tr.P.(C.) Nos.903 of 2023 & 146 of 2024 ``` **==> picture [7 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** 6. With the above directions, Tr.P.(C.) No.903/2023 is allowed directing transfer of O.P. No.225/2023 pending before the Family Court, Irinjalakuda, to the Family Court, Pala. The transferor Court shall transmit the entire records to the transferee Court, forthwith. Tr.P.(C.) No.146/2024 will stand dismissed. **Sd/-** **C. JAYACHANDRAN** **JUDGE** SKP/22-03 ``` Tr.P.(C.) Nos.903 of 2023 & 146 of 2024 ``` 7 ## `APPENDIX OF TR.P(C) 146/2024` ``` PETITIONERS’ ANNEXURES: ``` ``` ANNEXURE-A1THE TRUE COPY OF THE FORM NO: 8 NOTICE ISSUED BY THE HON'BLE FAMILY COURT, PALA DATED 08.08.2023 ANNEXURE-A2THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE HON'BLE FAMILY COURT, IRINJALAKKUDA ``` ``` RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:NIL ``` ``` Tr.P.(C.) Nos.903 of 2023 & 146 of 2024 ``` 8 ## `APPENDIX OF TR.P(C) 903/2023` ``` PETITIONER’S ANNEXURES: ``` ``` ANNEXURE A1A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE IN OP NO: 225/2023 OF THE FAMILY COURT IRINJALAKUDA ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER ANNEXURE A2A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION IN OP. 516/2023 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, PALA. ``` ``` RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES:NIL ``` ``` TRUE COPY ``` ``` P.A. TO JUDGE ```