High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeTransfer of O.P.759/2020 from Ernakulam to Kott...

Sreeja Sivan K V v. Jayakumar K.V

Case / Petition Number:TR.P(C) NO. 52 OF 2022

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • C.S. Dias
Judgment Date
2022-06-23
Court Decision / Holding
O.P. No.759/2020 is transferred from the Family Court, Ernakulam to the Family Court, Kottarakara; the parties may move for consolidation and joint trial of all cases; the Registry shall transmit the records to the Family Court, Kottarakara; the Family Court, Kottarakara shall call the case along with M.C No.94/2020.
Final Disposition
Transfer of O.P.759/2020 from Ernakulam to Kottarakara allowed; consolidation and joint trial of related matters permitted; records to be transmitted to the receiving court; directions issued for court proceedings in Kottarakara.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Sreeja Sivan K V

Respondents

  • Jayakumar K.V

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • S. Sreekumar (Kollam)
  • • K. Vijayan

Counsels for Respondents

  • • S. Sudhish Kumar

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a transfer petition under Sec.24 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed in TR.P(C) No. 52 of 2022, seeking to transfer OP(DIV) No. 759/2020, a divorce petition filed by the respondent before the Family Court, Ernakulam, to the Family Court at Kottarakara. The petitioner, Sreeja Sivan K V, asserts hardship due to the considerable distance (about 160 km) from Ernakulam to her residence at Kotarakara, lack of someone to accompany her to court, and the existence of a concurrent maintenance proceeding (M.C. No. 94/2020) at Kottarakara. She argues consolidation of Annexure A1 with the maintenance matter would save judicial time and avoid conflicting judgments. The respondent opposes transfer, arguing that the petitioner has lived outside Kerala (Mumbai, Bangalore, Nagpur, Hyderabad) and can travel to Ernakulam; he also notes an 498A complaint against him and his family, an anticipatory bail order, and asserts no necessity to move the proceedings; he highlights the dependency of his elderly mother and other practical difficulties his position would entail. The court ultimately relies on established principles that emphasize the convenience of the woman and children in matrimonial transfers and exercises its discretion under Sec. 24 to grant the transfer, with directions for consolidation and record transmission.

Provisions of Law Cited

Sec. 24, Code of Civil ProcedureSection 498A, Indian Penal Code

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Convenience of the woman and children in transfer of matrimonial cases
  • Discretionary power under Sec. 24 CPC

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner argues that she is the wife of the respondent and resides in Kotarakara (approx. 160 km from Ernakulam). She has filed M.C. No. 94/2020 in Kottarakara seeking maintenance and faces substantial hardship traveling to Ernakulam for posting dates in Annexure A1. The transfer would consolidate A1 with the maintenance matter, save judicial time, and prevent conflicting decisions. The court should exercise its discretionary power under Sec. 24 CPC in favor of transfer, guided by the evolving jurisprudence emphasizing the convenience of the woman and children in matrimonial matters.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondent contends the petitioner has lived in multiple cities and can travel to Ernakulam. He notes a pending 498A case and an anticipatory bail order against him, arguing no necessity to transfer. He also highlights the petitioner’s elderly mother’s welfare, claiming lack of necessity and asserting prejudice to the respondent if transferred. He emphasizes that the petition should not be entertained casually.

Cited Precedents (5)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Anindita Das v. Srijit Das[(2006) 9 SCC 197]Mentioned OnlyCited by respondent to caution that transfer petitions by women should not be entertained casually; court does not rely on its reasoning to grant the transfer in this case.
Sumitha Sing v. Kumar Sanjay and another2002 KHC 1889PositiveRecognizes that transfer decisions in matrimonial matters should consider the convenience of the woman and children.
Mona Aresh Goel v. Aresh Satya Goel2000 KHC 1835PositiveSupportive of the convenience principle in transfer decisions for matrimonial disputes.
Vaishali Shridhar Jagtap v. Shridhar Vishwanath Jagtap2016 KHC 6489PositiveAffirms the focus on convenience of the wife and children in transfer considerations.
Santhini v. Vijaya Venkatesh2017 (5) KHC 48PositiveAnchors the doctrine that convenience of the wife and child governs transfer decisions in matrimonial 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 Sreeja Sivan K V v. Jayakumar K.V 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 ``` ``` THURSDAY, THE 23[RD] DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 2ND ASHADHA, 1944 ``` ``` TR.P(C) NO. 52 OF 2022 ``` ``` IN OP(DIV) 759/2020 OF FAMILY COURT,ERNAKULAM ``` ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` SREEJA SIVAN K V. AGED 35 YEARS D/O SIVAN KUNJIKKUDDY, RESIDING AT SIVA NIVAS, NEELSWARAM P O, KOTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-691505. ``` ``` BY ADVS. S.SREEKUMAR (KOLLAM) K.VIJAYAN ``` ## **`RESPONDENT:`** ``` JAYAKUMAR K.V AGED 48 YEARS S/O VISWANATHAN, RESIDING AT JAI NIVAS, CHITTOOR ROAD, AYYAPPANKAVU, ERNAKULAM-682018. ``` ``` BY ADV S.SUDHISH KUMAR ``` ``` THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` TR.P(C) NO. 52 OF 2022 2 ``` ## **ORDER** The transfer petition is filed under Sec.24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking to transfer O.P No.759/2020 (Annexure A1) from the Family Court, Ernakulam to the Family Court, Kottarakara. 2. The petitioner’s case, in brief, in the memorandum of transfer petition is that, she is the wife of the respondent. They are issueless. The respondent has filed Annexure A1, seeking a decree of divorce. The petitioner is residing in her parental home at Kottarakara. It is more than 160 kms from Ernakulam. There is no person to chaperone her from Kottarakara to Ernakulam to contest Annexure A1. The petitioner has filed M.C. No.94/2020 (Annexure A2) before the Family Court, Kottarakara, seeking an order of maintenance. The petitioner would be put to great hardship and difficulty if Annexure A1 is prosecuted in Ernakulam. Hence, the transfer petition. 3. The transfer petition is opposed by the respondent, ``` TR.P(C) NO. 52 OF 2022 3 ``` who has filed a counter affidavit, inter alia, contending that the petitioner has spent a major portion of her life in Mumbai, Bangalore, Nagpur, and Hyderabad. Moreover, her parents are not suffering from any kind of illness, so she can have no difficulty in travelling to Ernakulam. The petitioner has filed a complaint under Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code against the respondent and his family members before the Kottarakara Police and the matter is now pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kottarakara. The petitioner has alleged that the respondent has manhandled her. This Court had granted the respondent Annexure R(a) order of anticipatory bail. There is no necessity for the petitioner to travel to Ernakulam on all posting dates to contest Annexure A1. The respondent’s mother is a widow and is 75 years of age. There is no person to attend to her. The grounds alleged in the transfer petition are devoid of any merits. Hence, and the transfer petition may be dismissed. ``` TR.P(C) NO. 52 OF 2022 4 ``` 4. Heard; S.Sreekumar Kollam **,** the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. S.Sudhish Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent places reliance on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in **Anindita Das v. Srijit Das** [(2006) 9 SCC 197], wherein the Honourable Supreme Court has held that since a large number of transfer petitions are filed by women, taking advantage of leniency, the same should not be entertained in a casual manner. 6. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner has already filed M.C. No.94/2020 before the Family Court, Kottarakara, against the respondent, seeking an order of maintenance. The respondent does not dispute the fact that he is contesting Annexure A2 and has not sought for the transfer of proceeding. He has also admitted in his counter affidavit that, he stands chargesheeted for an offence under Section 498 A and is facing trial in C.C. No.197/2021 before ``` TR.P(C) NO. 52 OF 2022 5 ``` the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kottarakara. His main defence is that, as the petitioner has spent a major portion of her life outside Kerala, she would have no difficulty to appear and contest Annexure A1 before the Family Court, Ernakulam. 7. The law with respect to transfer of proceedings, particularly matrimonial disputes, is no longer res-integra, in view of the categoric declaration of law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Sumitha Sing V. Kumar Sanjay and another** [2002 KHC 1889], **Mona Aresh Goel V. Aresh Satya Goel** [2000 KHC 1835], **Vaishali Shridhar Jagtap V. Shridhar Vishwanath Jagtap** [2016 KHC 6489] and **Santhini V. Vijaya Venkatesh** [2017 (5) KHC 48]. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that it is the convenience of the woman and children that has to be looked into, while ordering the transfer of a case from one Court to another. 8. On a consideration of the pleadings and materials on record and the rival submissions made across the bar, it ``` TR.P(C) NO. 52 OF 2022 6 ``` is an admitted fact that the respondent is already appearing before the Courts at Kottarakara to defend Annexure A2 and C.C No.197/2021. Furthermore, on a comparison of the relative hardship, I am of the firm view that the convenience of the petitioner has to be given due preference, especially, since the respondent has not sought for the transfer of the above cases. Moreover, if Annexures A1 and A2 are consolidated and jointly tried, it would save precious judicial time and avoid conflict of decisions. Therefore, I am inclined to exercise the discretionary powers of this Court under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure and order the transfer of O.P.No.759/2020. In the result, I allow the transfer petition as follows:(i) O.P No.759/2020 is transferred from the Family Court, Ernakulam to the Family Court, Kottarakara. (ii) The parties would be at liberty to move the Family Court, Kottarakara, for consolidation and joint trial of all the cases between them. ``` TR.P(C) NO. 52 OF 2022 7 ``` (iii) The Registry shall forward a copy of this order to the Family Court, Ernakulam with instructions to forthwith transmit the records in Annexure A1 to the Family Court, Kottarakara. (iv) The Family Court, Kottarakara shall, immediately on the receipt of the records in AnnexureA1, call the case along with M.C No.94/2020 Sd/- **C.S.DIAS, JUDGE** rmm/23.06.2022 ## **`TR.P(C) NO. 52 OF 2022 8`** ## **`APPENDIX OF TR.P(C) 52/2022`** ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES ``` ``` Annexure A1 ``` ``` A TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE OP(DIVORCE) NO.759/2020 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM. ``` ``` Annexure A2THE TRUE COPY OF THE M C NO.94/2020 OF FAMILY COURT, KOTTARAKKARA. ``` ## RESPONDENT’S EXHIBIT EXHIBIT R(a) PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ANTICIPATORY BAIL ORDER IN BA NO.7945/2020 IN CRIME NO.3824/2020 OF KOTTARAKARA POLICE STATION.