Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeTransfer petitions allowed; four family court c...

Sruthi Thereeshia George v Bobby Joseph (Transfer Petition (C) Nos. 430/2022, 442/2022, 443/2022 and 450/2022)

Case / Petition Number:Tr.P(C) Nos.430, 442, 443 & 450/2022

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • C.S. Dias
Judgment Date
2022-09-23
Court Decision / Holding
The Transfer Petitions are allowed. The court transfers O.P.643/2020, O.P.721/2020, O.P.722/2020 and O.P.723/2020 from the Family Court Malappuram to the Family Court, Kozhikode. The orders authorize consolidation and joint trial of all proceedings. The Registry is directed to transmit the records to Kozhikode, and the Family Court, Kozhikode is to post these cases for hearing promptly. The parties may move for consolidation, and the courts are directed to proceed in Kozhikode with consolidated consideration of all four matters.
Final Disposition
Transfer petitions allowed; four family court cases transferred from Malappuram to Kozhikode; consolidation and joint trial ordered; records to be transmitted.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Sruthi Thereeshia George
  • Brain Bobby Joseph (Minor)

Respondents

  • Bobby Joseph

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • PhiJo Pradeesh Philip
  • • P.V. Anoop
  • • Navjyoth S.

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Manas P Hameed

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a common order of the Kerala High Court, Ernakulam, disposing of four Transfer Petitions (Civil) under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, filed in relation to matrimonial proceedings between Sruthi Thereeshia George and Bobby Joseph. The petitions seek to transfer O.P. Nos. 643/2020, 721/2020, 722/2020 and 723/2020 from the Family Court, Malappuram to the Family Court, Kozhikode, so that related matters including maintenance, divorce, restitution of conjugal rights and/or other ancillary relief including a custody dispute can be consolidated and heard at a single forum. The petitioner-wife resides in Kozhikode and alleges practical difficulties in traveling to Malappuram; a child (in some petitions represented by the mother) also resides in the Kozhikode jurisdiction. A parallel custody proceeding, O.P. No. 702/2022, has been filed by the respondent in Kozhikode, further contextualizing the welfare considerations. The court relies on Supreme Court authorities that transfer should be guided by the convenience of the wife and child and that consolidation serves efficiency and consistency. Exercising its discretionary power under Section 24 CPC, the Court allows the transfers to Kozhikode, directing records be transmitted and permitting consolidation/joint trial.

Provisions of Law Cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 24

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Convenience of the woman and children — welfare principle guiding transfer of matrimonial disputes; settled law cited from Supreme Court decisions.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner-wife (and, where relevant, the minor through the mother) contends that the four matrimonial proceedings should be transferred from the Family Court at Malappuram to the Family Court at Kozhikode, where the petitioner and the child reside. The grounds include the practical burden of long travel, lack of sitting in Kozhikode for the Malappuram matters, and the presence of a custody petition in Kozhikode (O.P.702/2022), which aligns the child’s welfare with Kozhikode’s jurisdiction. The petition emphasizes that consolidation of maintenance, divorce, restitution of conjugal rights and related reliefs in a single forum will save judicial time, avoid conflict of decisions, and ensure uniformity. They cite Supreme Court precedents that advocate a welfare-based approach to transfer, focusing on the convenience of the wife and child and the ends of justice through consolidated proceedings.

Contentions of Respondents

The text does not reproduce explicit pleadings or grounds advanced by the respondent in opposition to the transfers. The record shows the respondent’s counsel appeared (Manas P Hameed), and the court ultimately relies on welfare-oriented transfer principles as articulated by Supreme Court authorities. No detailed counter-arguments are recorded in the order; the decision foregrounds the welfare-based transfer doctrine rather than a reasoned, point-by-point rebuttal from the respondent on each four petitions.

Cited Precedents (5)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Sumitha Sing v. Kumar Sanjay and another(2001) 10 SCC 41PositiveCited to establish the settled principle that transfer of matrimonial disputes is guided by the convenience of the wife and child; relied upon by the court.
Mona Aresh Goel v. Aresh Satya Goel(2000) 9 SCC 255PositiveCited for welfare/transfer principle; supports convenience of wife and child.
Vaishali Shridhar Jagtap v. Shridhar Vishwanath JagtapAIR 2016 SC 3584PositiveCited as Supreme Court authority emphasizing welfare of women/children in transfer decisions.
Santhini V. Vijaya Venkatesh2017 (4) KLT 415 (SC)PositiveCited for transfer approach based on welfare of child; supports the current decision.
Valsal Nisha v. Rajesh Soman Nair2020 (8) KLR 475PositiveCited for welfare-based transfer approach; supports consolidation and transfer to Kozhikode.

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 Sruthi Thereeshia George v Bobby Joseph (Transfer Petition (C) Nos. 430/2022, 442/2022, 443/2022 and 450/2022) 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 ``` ``` FRIDAY, THE 23[RD] DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022 / 1ST ASWINA, 1944 ``` ``` TR.P(C) NO. 430 OF 2022 ``` ``` IN OP 721/2020 OF FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM ``` ## `PETITIONER/PETITIONER:` ``` SRUTHI THEREESHIA GEORGE, AGED 31 YEARS, DAUGHTER OF GEORGE, VATTAPALATH HOUSE, VILAKKAMTHODU PUNNAKKAL (PO), THAMARASSERY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,, PIN – 673603 ``` ``` BY ADVS.PHIJO PRADEESH PHILIP P.V.ANOOP NAVJYOTH S. ``` ## `RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:` ``` BOBBY JOSEPH, AGED 37 YEARS, SON OF DEVASIYA JOSEPH, ANIYANAMKUNNEL, MANIMOOLY, VAZHIKKADAVU, RANDAMPADAM, NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN – 679333 ``` ``` BY ADV MANAS P HAMEED ``` ``` THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.09.2022, ALONG WITH Tr.P(C).450/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` Tr.P.(C)Nos.430,442, 443 & 450/2022 ``` ``` -:2:- ``` ## `IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM` ## `PRESENT` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS ``` ``` FRIDAY, THE 23[RD] DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022 / 1ST ASWINA, 1944 ``` ## `TR.P(C) NO. 442 OF 2022` ``` IN OP NO.722/2020 OF FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM ``` ## `PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS:` ``` 1SRUTHI THEREESHIA GEORGE, AGED 31 YEARS, DAUGHTER OF GEORGE, VATTAPALATH HOUSE, VILAKKAMTHODU PUNNAKKAL (PO), THAMARASSERY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN – 673603 2BRAIN BOBBY JOSEPH (MINOR), AGED 7 YEARS, SON OF BOBBY JOSEPH, VATTAPALATH HOUSE, VILAKKAMTHODU PUNNAKKAL (PO), THAMARASSERY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN- 673 603 REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER SRUTHI THEREESHIA GEORGE AGED 31 YEARS, D/O. GEORGE, VATTAPALATH HOUSE, VILAKKAMTHODU PUNNAKKAL (PO), THAMARASSERY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN – 673603 BY ADVS.PHIJO PRADEESH PHILIP P.V.ANOOP NAVJYOTH S. ``` ## `RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:` ``` BOBBY JOSEPH, AGED 37 YEARS, SON OF DEVASIYA JOSEPH, ANIYANAMKUNNEL, MANIMOOLY, VAZHIKKADAVU, RANDAMPADAM, NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN – 679333 ``` ``` Tr.P.(C)Nos.430,442, 443 & 450/2022 ``` ``` -:3:- ``` ``` BY ADV MANAS P HAMEED ``` ``` THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.09.2022, ALONG WITH Tr.P(C).450/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` Tr.P.(C)Nos.430,442, 443 & 450/2022 ``` ``` -:4:- ``` ## `IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM` ## `PRESENT` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS ``` ``` FRIDAY, THE 23[RD] DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022 / 1ST ASWINA, 1944 ``` ``` TR.P(C) NO. 443 OF 2022 ``` ``` IN OP 723/2020 OF FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM ``` ## `PETITIONER/PETITIONER:` ``` SRUTHI THEREESHIA GEORGE, AGED 31 YEARS, DAUGHTER OF GEORGE, VATTAPALATH HOUSE, VILAKKAMTHODU PUNNAKKAL (PO), THAMARASSERY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN – 673603 ``` ``` BY ADVS.PHIJO PRADEESH PHILIP P.V.ANOOP NAVJYOTH S. ``` ## `RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:` ``` BOBBY JOSEPH, AGED 37 YEARS, SON OF DEVASIYA JOSEPH, ANIYANAMKUNNEL, MANIMOOLY, VAZHIKKADAVU, RANDAMPADAM, NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN – 679333 ``` ``` BY ADV MANAS P HAMEED ``` ``` THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.09.2022, ALONG WITH Tr.P(C).450/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` Tr.P.(C)Nos.430,442, 443 & 450/2022 ``` ``` -:5:- ``` ## `IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM` ## `PRESENT` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS ``` ``` FRIDAY, THE 23[RD] DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022 / 1ST ASWINA, 1944 ``` ``` TR.P(C) NO. 450 OF 2022 ``` ``` IN OP 643/2020 OF FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM ``` ## `PETITIONER/PETITIONER:` ``` SRUTHI THEREESHIA GEORGE, AGED 31 YEARS, DAUGHTER OF GEORGE, VATTAPALATH HOUSE, VILAKKAMTHODU PUNNAKKAL (PO), THAMARASSERY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN – 673603 ``` ``` BY ADVS.PHIJO PRADEESH PHILIP P.V.ANOOP NAVJYOTH S. ``` ## `RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:` ``` BOBBY JOSEPH, SON OF DEVASIYA JOSEPH, ANIYANAMKUNNEL HOUSE, RANDAMPADAM, MANIMOOLY,VIA NILAMBUR, PIN- 679 333 (MANIMOOLY PSL) REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY TENNISE JOSEPH, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.E.K.JOSEPH, THEKKETHOTTIYIL HOUSE, FATHIMA GIRI ROAD, CHANDAKKUNNU (PO), NILAMBUR, PIN – 679329 ``` ``` BY ADV MANAS P HAMEED ``` ``` THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.09.2022, ALONG WITH Tr.P(C).430/2022, 442/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` Tr.P.(C)Nos.430,442, 443 & 450/2022 ``` ``` -:6:- ``` Dated this the 23[rd] day of September,2022 ## **C O M M O N O R D E R** As these transfer petitions pertain to the disputes that have arisen out of the marriage between Bobby Joseph (husband) and Sruthi Thereeshia George (wife), they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Transfer petitions are filed by the petitioner (wife) to transfer O.P.Nos.643/2020, 721/2020, 722/2020 & 723/2020 from the Family Court, Malappuram to the Family Court, Kozhikode. The common case of the petitioner is that she is the wife of the respondent. They have a child born in their wedlock. As the respondent was attempting to oust the petitioner and child from the matrimonial home, even though she is a permanent resident of Kozhikode, she ``` Tr.P.(C)Nos.430,442, 443 & 450/2022 ``` ``` -:7:- ``` was constrained to file M.C.No.316/2020 before the Family Court, Malappuram, against the respondent, for an order of maintenance for herself and the child. Immediately, the respondent filed O.P.No.643/2020 before the same court, against the petitioner, for a decree of divorce. Thereafter, the petitioner filed O.P.No.721/2020, against the respondent before the same court, for a decree for return of money and other ancillary reliefs, O.P.No.722/2020, for an order of maintenance and O.P.No.723/2020, for a decree of restitution of conjugal rights. Now, the respondent has filed O.P.No.702/2022 before the Family Court, Kozhikode, for the custody of the child, as the petitioner and the child are residing within the jurisdiction of the Family Court, Kozhikode. The petitioner was constrained to file the above cases before the Family Court, Malappuram, due to the reason that there was no sitting in the Family Court, ``` Tr.P.(C)Nos.430,442, 443 & 450/2022 ``` ``` -:8:- ``` Kozhikode, for a considerable period of time. The petitioner and the child are residing in the petitioner’s parental home at Thamarassry in Kozhikode. It is practically difficult for the petitioner to travel all the way from Kozhikode to Malappuram, to contest the above proceedings. Moreover, since the respondent has filed O.P.No.702/2022 before the Family Court, Kozhikode and contesting the proceeding there, no inconvenience would be caused to him in the above stated four cases being transferred from the Family Court, Malappuram, to the Family Court, Kozhikode. Hence, the transfer petitions. 3. Heard; Sri. Phijo Pradeesh Philip, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Manas P Hameed, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 4. The law with respect to transfer of proceedings, particularly matrimonial disputes, is no ``` Tr.P.(C)Nos.430,442, 443 & 450/2022 ``` ``` -:9:- ``` 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** [(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], **Santhini V. Vijaya Venkatesh** [2017 (4) KLT 415 (SC)] **Valsal Nisha v. Rajesh Soman Nair** [2020(8) KLR 475]. 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. 5. In the light of the law laid down in the afore-cited decisions, the uncontroverted pleadings and materials on record and the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact the respondent has now filed O.P.No.702/2020 before the Family Court, Kozhikode and for the custody of the ``` Tr.P.(C)Nos.430,442, 443 & 450/2022 ``` ``` -:10:- ``` child who is residing within the jurisdiction of the Family Court, Kozhikode, I am inclined to exercise the discretionary powers of this Court under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 and allow the transfer petitions by ordering the transfer of O.P.Nos.643/2020, 721/2020, 722/2020 & 723/2020 from the Family Court, Malappuram to the Family Court, Kozhikode so that all the cases can be consolidated and jointly tried, which would save precious judicial time and avoid conflict of decisions. In the result, the transfer petitions are disposed of as follows: - (i) Tr.P.(C)No.450/2022 is allowed, by ordering the transfer of 643/2020 from the Family Court, Malappuram, to the Family Court, Kozhikode. - (ii) Tr.P.(C)No.430/2022 is allowed, by ordering the transfer of O.P.No.721/2020 from the Family Court, Malappuram, to the Family Court, Kozhikode. ``` Tr.P.(C)Nos.430,442, 443 & 450/2022 ``` ``` -:11:- ``` - (iii) Tr.P.(C)No.442/2022 is allowed, by ordering the transfer of O.P.No.722/2020 from the Family Court, Malappuram, to the Family Court, Kozhikode. - (iv) Tr.P.(C)No.443/2022 is allowed, by ordering the transfer of O.P.No.723/2020 from the Family Court, Malappuram, to the Family Court, Kozhikode. - (v) The parties would be at liberty to move the Family Court, Kozhikode and seek for the consolidation and joint trial of all the proceedings between them. - (vi) The Registry shall forward a copy of the common order to the Family Court, Malappuram with instructions to transmit the records in the above stated cases in reliefs (i) to (iv) to the Family Court, Kozhikode. - (vii) The Family Court, Kozhikode shall, immediately on receipt of the records in the above stated cases, post the cases along with ``` Tr.P.(C)Nos.430,442, 443 & 450/2022 ``` ``` -:12:- ``` ## O.P.No.702/2022. Sd/- ## **C.S.DIAS,JUDGE** DST/23.09.22 //True copy/ P.A.To Judge ``` Tr.P.(C)Nos.430,442, 443 & 450/2022 ``` ``` -:13:- ``` ## `APPENDIX OF TR.P(C) 430/2022` ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE ATRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN AGAINST THE RESPONDENT DATED 11.11.2020 WHICH IS NOW PENDING AS O.P.NO.721 OF 2020 ON THE FILE OF FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM ``` ``` ANNEXURE BTRUE COPY OF THE O.P.NO.702 OF 2022 ON THE FILE OF THE FAMILY COURT, KOZHIKODE ``` ``` Tr.P.(C)Nos.430,442, 443 & 450/2022 ``` ``` -:14:- ``` ## `APPENDIX OF TR.P(C) 442/2022` ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE ATRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS AGAINST RESPONDENT DATED 11.11.2020 WHICH IS NOW PENDING AS O.P.NO.722/2020 ON THE FILE OF FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM ``` ``` ANNEXURE BTRUE COPY OF THE O.P.NO.702 OF 2022 ON THE FILE OF THE FAMILY COURT, KOZHIKODE ``` ``` Tr.P.(C)Nos.430,442, 443 & 450/2022 ``` ``` -:15:- ``` ## `APPENDIX OF TR.P(C) 443/2022` ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE ATRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONERAGAINSTRESPONDENTDATED 11.11.2020 WHICH IS NOW PENDING AS O.P.NO.723/2020 ON THE FILE OF FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM ``` ``` ANNEXURE BTRUE COPY OF THE O.P.NO.702 OF 2022 ON THE FILE OF THE FAMILY COURT, KOZHIKODE ``` ``` Tr.P.(C)Nos.430,442, 443 & 450/2022 ``` ``` -:16:- ``` ## `APPENDIX OF TR.P(C) 450/2022` ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE ATRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONERAGAINSTRESPONDENTDATED 28.10.2020 WHICH IS NOW PENDING AS O.P.NO.643/2020 ON THE FILE OF FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM ANNEXURE BTRUE COPY OF THE O.P.NO.702 OF 2022 ON THE FILE OF THE FAMILY COURT, KOZHIKODE ```