Sreeja Sivan K V v. Jayakumar K.V
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
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 Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Anindita Das v. Srijit Das | [(2006) 9 SCC 197] | Mentioned Only | Cited 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 another | 2002 KHC 1889 | Positive | Recognizes that transfer decisions in matrimonial matters should consider the convenience of the woman and children. |
| Mona Aresh Goel v. Aresh Satya Goel | 2000 KHC 1835 | Positive | Supportive of the convenience principle in transfer decisions for matrimonial disputes. |
| Vaishali Shridhar Jagtap v. Shridhar Vishwanath Jagtap | 2016 KHC 6489 | Positive | Affirms the focus on convenience of the wife and children in transfer considerations. |
| Santhini v. Vijaya Venkatesh | 2017 (5) KHC 48 | Positive | Anchors the doctrine that convenience of the wife and child governs transfer decisions in matrimonial cases. |
Diagnostic Tool
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.