Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeTransfer petition dismissed; no transfer ordere...

Sreedevi N.K v. Jayakumar K

Case / Petition Number:TR.P(C) 362/2022

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • C. S. Dias
Judgment Date
2022-10-11
Court Decision / Holding
The transfer petition is dismissed. However, the court directed that the petitioner’s inconvenience can be addressed by directing the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram, not to insist on the petitioner’s personal appearance on all posting dates unless warranted, and to compassionate consider any application seeking dispensation of personal appearance. The petitioner retains the right to move for dispensation if needed.
Final Disposition
Transfer petition dismissed; no transfer ordered; discretionary relief by addressing personal appearance inconvenience. Weighs convenience against orderly proceedings.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Sreedevi N.K

Respondents

  • Jayakumar K

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Deepa Narayanan
  • • K. Sujai Sathian
  • • Mary Liya Sabu
  • • Vismaya Vinod

Counsels for Respondents

  • • G. Sudheer
  • • R. Harikrishnan

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is TR.P(C) No. 362 of 2022, a transfer petition under Section 24 CPC filed by the petitioner Sreedevi N.K. seeking transfer of OP No. 77/2021 from the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram to the Family Court, Malappuram. The petitioner, wife of the respondent, alleges a strained marriage and domestic inconvenience, with a 22-year-old daughter. She contends that she is employed as staff at the Family Court Tirur (Malappuram District), and traveling to Thiruvananthapuram for posting dates would cause substantial hardship. The respondent, a daily wage labourer, disputes the move, arguing that the petitioner had filed Annexure-A1 in Thiruvananthapuram and that there is no ground to transfer merely because the respondent may be inconvenienced. The Court examined the discretionary power under Section 24 CPC, noting the petitioner’s residence in Thiruvananthapuram and Tirur’s location in Malappuram District, but ultimately found no compelling ground to transfer the case. Citing Silpa Shaji v. Satheesh K.S & Ors. and Vidya Mundekkat v. Akhilesh Jayaram, the Judge held that mere temporary residence or inconvenience does not automatically warrant transfer. Instead, the Court directed a potential remedy: not insisting on personal appearance on all posting dates, if warranted, to alleviate inconvenience. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, while preserving the petitioner’s right to seek dispensation of personal appearance.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Discretionary power under Section 24 CPC
  • No invariable rule that transfer must be granted on inconvenience
  • Mere temporary residence is not a ground for transfer

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that Annexure-A1 was filed in Thiruvananthapuram where she has permanent residence. She is presently employed as staff at the Family Court, Tirur, and would incur substantial hardship attending hearings in Thiruvananthapuram, requiring leave from her duties. The respondent is a daily-wage labourer with limited means to travel. Transfer to Malappuram would prevent undue hardship and ensure effective participation in proceedings, including mediation that has been completed. While acknowledging the discretion under Section 24 CPC, the petitioner argues there is no universal rule mandating transfer on inconvenience; the Court should exercise its discretion to permit transfer or, at minimum, arrangements to dispense with personal appearance on posting dates, if feasible, to avoid prejudice to the petitioner and ensure fairness in proceedings.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondent counters that Annexure-A1 was filed by the petitioner in Thiruvananthapuram and that merely moving the petitioner to Tirur cannot justify transferring the case. He is a daily-wage labourer with limited means to travel to Malappuram; transferring would impose a new hardship on him. The petition for transfer lacks a solid ground, and the respondent urges dismissal of the transfer petition to preserve the original forum and avoid unnecessary disruption to proceedings.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Silpa Shaji v. Satheesh K.S & Ors.2022 (1) KHC 691PositiveCited to support the proposition that temporary residence alone is not a valid ground for transfer.
Vidya Mundekkat v. Akhilesh Jayaram2021(6) KHC 506PositiveDivision Bench held there is no invariable rule to transfer on inconvenience; supports discretionary approach under Section 24 CPC.

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 Sreedevi N.K v. Jayakumar K 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` ``` TUESDAY, THE 11[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 19TH ASWINA, 1944 ``` ## `TR.P(C) NO. 362 OF 2022` ``` IN OP 77/2021 OF FAMILY COURT,TRIVANDRUM ``` ## `PETITIONER/PETITIONER:` ``` SREEDEVI .N.K, AGED 46 YEARS W/O. JAYAKUMAR K, TC 14/1164, PALAVILA HOUSE, OHRA - C 43, PALAYAM, VIKAS BHAVAN P O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 033. ``` ``` BY ADVS.DEEPA NARAYANAN K.SUJAI SATHIAN MARY LIYA SABU VISMAYA VINOD ``` ## `RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:` ``` JAYAKUMAR .K S/O. P KRISHNAN, TC 14/1164, PALAVILA HOUSE, OHRA - C 43, PALAYAM, VIKAS BHAVAN P O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 033. ``` ``` BY ADVS.G.SUDHEER R.HARIKRISHNAN (H-308) ``` ``` THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` Tr.P.(C)No.362/2022 ``` ``` -:2:- ``` Dated this the 11[th] day of October, 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.77/2021 (Annexure-A1), from the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram to the Family Court, Malappuram. 2. The petitioner's case, in brief, in the memorandum of transfer petition is that; she is the wife of the respondent. The marital relationship is strained. The couple has a daughter aged 22 years. The respondent is leading a wavered life. The petitioner had filed Annexure-A1 against the respondent, for a decree of recovery of gold ``` Tr.P.(C)No.362/2022 ``` ``` -:3:- ``` ornaments, money and other consequential reliefs. The mediation is complete. The petitioner is currently employed as a staff in the Family Court, Tirur in Malappuram District. She would have to take leave to appear before the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram, which would cause inconvenience to her. The respondent is unemployed. Therefore, no inconvenience would be caused to him in appearing before the Family Court, Malappuram. Hence, the transfer petition. 3. The respondent has filed a counter affidavit, denying the allegations in the transfer petition. He has contended that the petitioner herself chose and filed Annexure-A1, before the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. Merely because the respondent has now got to be transferred to the Family Court, Tirur, is not a ground to transfer Annexure-A1 to the Family Court at Malappuram. The respondent is a daily waged ``` Tr.P.(C)No.362/2022 ``` ``` -:4:- ``` labourer. He does not have the means to travel to Malappuram to contest Annexure-A1. Hence, the transfer petition may be dismissed. 4. Heard; Smt. Deepa Narayanan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. G.Sudheer, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 5. The question is whether Annexure-A1 is to be transferred?. 6. Undisputedly, it was the petitioner who filed Annexure-A1 before the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The cause title of the transfer petition establishes that the petitioner's permanent residence is in Thiruvananthapuram. The respondent is also a resident of Thiruvananthapuram. The ground for transfer is that the petitioner is presently working in the Family Court, Tirur, as a Court staff. Therefore, it would cause inconvenience for her to travel to ``` Tr.P.(C)No.362/2022 ``` ``` -:5:- ``` Thiruvananthapuram, to contest Annexure-A1. 7. This Court in **Silpa Shaji v. Satheesh K.S & Ors.** [2022 (1) KHC 691] has held that merely because a person is temporarily residing at a particular place, is not a ground for transfer of a proceeding. 8. In **Vidya Mundekkat v. Akhilesh Jayaram** [2021(6) KHC 506] a Division Bench of this Court has categorically held that there is no invariable rule that, whenever a wife makes a request for transfer, pointing out an inconvenience, this Court is obliged to exercise its discretionary power under Section 24 of the CPC and transfer her proceeding. 9. It may be true that the petitioner is presently residing at Tirur and is employed in the Family Court, Tirur. This fact dissuades me to transfer very Annexure-A1 from the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram, to the Family Court at Malappuram, since the Family Court, Tirur is also ``` Tr.P.(C)No.362/2022 ``` ``` -:6:- ``` situated in Malappuram District. Moreover, merely because the petitioner has been transferred to Tirur, is not a ground to transfer the case. In the future, the petitioner may get transferred to some other court in some other District, which cannot be treated as a ground to again transfer the case. 10. In the above legal and factual background, I am not inclined to exercise the discretionary powers of this Court under Section 24 of the C.P.C. in favour of the petitioner. Nonetheless, I am of the view that the petitioner's inconvenience can be redressed by directing the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram, not to insist for her personal appearance of the petitioner on all posting dates, unless it is warranted. In the result, the transfer petition is dismissed, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to move an application before the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram, and seek for dispensation of her ``` Tr.P.(C)No.362/2022 ``` ``` -:7:- ``` personal appearance. If such an application is filed, the same shall be compassionately considered by the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. Sd/- ## **C.S.DIAS,JUDGE** DST/11.10.22 //True copy/ P.A.To Judge ``` Tr.P.(C)No.362/2022 ``` ``` -:8:- ``` ## `APPENDIX` ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A1TRUE COPY OF THE OP 77/2021 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 12.01.2021. ``` ``` RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS: NIL ```