High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeTransfer petitions allowed; cases transferred t...

Sulfath V.H v. Saidu Muhammed

Case / Petition Number:TR.P(C) Nos. 548/2021 & 549/2021

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • C.S. Dias
Judgment Date
2022-11-09
Court Decision / Holding
The transfer petitions are allowed. (i) Transfer of G.O.P. No.858/2021 from Family Court, Irinjalakuda to Family Court, Ernakulam (Tr.P(C) 549/2021). (ii) Transfer of O.P.No.857/2021 from Family Court, Irinjalakuda to Family Court, Ernakulam (Tr.P(C) 548/2021). (iii) Parties may move the Family Court, Ernakulam for consolidation and joint trial of all cases between them. (iv) Registry to transmit records from Irinjalakuda to Ernakulam and issue notices to the parties. (v) Family Court, Ernakulam to proceed upon receipt of records.
Final Disposition
Transfer petitions allowed; cases transferred to Family Court, Ernakulam, for consolidation and joint trial; records to be transmitted; notices to be issued to parties.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Sulfath V.H
  • Laiba (Minor)

Respondents

  • Saidu Muhammed

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • T. Madhu
  • • C.R. SaradamanI
  • • A. Sain Paul
  • • P.R. Shibu
  • • Shahid Azeez
  • • Renjish S. Menon
  • • Alunkal George

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Siraj Karoly

Case Synopsis & Summary

The Kerala High Court, Ernakulam, heard two transfer petitions filed by Sulfath V.H (wife) and, in the second petition, her minor child Laiba, challenging the Family Court, Irinjalakuda’s orders in O.P. No.857/2021 (divorce by Mubaarath) and G.O.P. No.858/2021 (custody). The petitions seek to transfer the divorce and custody proceedings from Irinjalakuda to the Family Court, Ernakulam, so that the cases can be consolidated and jointly tried. The Court notes the wife’s residence in Ernakulam with the child, the husband’s employment abroad, and the lack of a chaperone to transport between Ernakulam and Irinjalakuda, making ongoing proceedings inconvenient and burdensome for the wife and the child. Relying on a line of Supreme Court decisions emphasizing the welfare and convenience of women and children in family-law transfers, the Court exercised its discretionary power under Section 24 CPC to transfer the cases to Ernakulam to achieve consolidation and avoid multiplicity of proceedings, thereby saving judicial time. The order directs the Family Court, Ernakulam to receive the records, issue notices, and proceed with consolidated hearing. The petitions are disposed of by a common order, with a direction to effect the transfer immediately.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Preference to the convenience and welfare of the wife and child in transfer of familial proceedings (as established by leading Supreme Court decisions)
  • Avoidance of multiplicity of proceedings / consolidation for efficiency

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Not explicitly stated in the judgment. The common order cites welfare and convenience considerations and the available material to justify transfer under Section 24 CPC.

Contentions of Respondents

Not explicitly stated in the judgment. The order records hearings and relies on welfare-oriented precedents to justify the transfer, without detailed enumerated arguments in the text provided.

Cited Precedents (6)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Sumitha Sing v. Kumar Sanjay and another2001 (10) SCC 41PositiveCited to support that the convenience of the wife and child takes precedence in transfer decisions in family matters.
Mona Aresh Goel v. Aresh Satya Goel2000 (9) SCC 255PositiveUsed as part of the catena of decisions prioritizing welfare of wife/child in transfers.
Vaishali Shridhar Jagtap v. Shridhar Vishwanath JagtapAIR 2016 SC 3584PositiveReiterates welfare-centric transfer approach in family disputes.
Santhini v. Vijaya Venkatesh2017 (4) KLT 415 (SC)PositiveCited for the principle favoring the convenience of the wife and child in transfer cases.
N.C.V. Aiswarya v. A.S. Sharavana Karthik Sha2022(5) KHC 185PositiveSupports welfare-based considerations in transfer decisions.
Valsal Nisha v. Rajesh Soman Nair2020(8) KLR 475PositiveUsed to justify prioritizing the interests of the mother and child in transfer of proceedings.

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 Sulfath V.H v. Saidu Muhammed and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

``` TR.P(C) NOs.548/2021 & 549/2021 ``` ``` -1- ``` # **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** # **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS ``` ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 9[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 18TH KARTHIKA, 1944 TR.P(C) NO. 548 OF 2021 ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENTOP 857/2021 OF FAMILY COURT, ``` ## **`IRINJALAKUDA`** ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` SULFATH V.H AGED 26 YEARS D/O. HAMSA V.A, VAZHAYELIPARAMBIL HOUSE, VELIYATHUNADU DESOM, ALUVA WEST VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683101. BY ADVS. T.MADHU C.R.SARADAMANI A.SAIN PAUL P.R.SHIBU SHAHID AZEEZ RENJISH S. MENON ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` SAIDU MUHAMMED AGED 36 YEARS S/O. UMMER, RESIDING AT CHULLIPARAMBIL HOUSE, PUTHIYAKADU DESOM, MATHILAKAM, PAPPINIVATTOM VILLAGE, MATHILAKAM POST, KODUNGALLUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680685. ``` ``` BY ADV SIRAJ KAROLY ``` ``` THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 09.11.2022, ALONG WITH Tr.P(C).549/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` TR.P(C) NOs.548/2021 & 549/2021 ``` ``` -2- ``` # **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS ``` ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 9[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 18TH KARTHIKA, 1944 TR.P(C) NO. 549 OF 2021 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENTGOP 858/2021 OF FAMILY COURT, ``` ## **`IRINJALAKUDA`** ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` 1SULFATH V.H AGED 26 YEARS D/O. HAMSA.V.A., VAZHAYELIPARAMBIL HOUSE VELIYATHUNADU DESOM, ALUVA WEST VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 101 2LAIBA (MINOR) AGED 5 YEARS D/O. SULFATH, (D.OB 4/9/2016)M VAZHAYELIPARAMBIL HOUSE, VELIYATHUNADU DESOM, ALUVA WEST VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 101-THORUGH HER MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND SULFATH THE FIRST PETITIONER HEREIN BY ADVS. T.MADHU C.R.SARADAMANI A.SAIN PAUL P.R.SHIBU ALUNKAL GEORGE SHAHID AZEEZ RENJISH S. MENON ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` SAIDU MUHAMMED S/O. UMMER, RESIDING AT CHULLIPARAMBIL HOUSE, PUTHIYAKADU DESOM, MATHILAKAM, PAPPINIVATTOM VILLAGE, MATHILAKAM POST, KODUNGALLUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT- 680 685 ``` ``` BY ADV SIRAJ KAROLY ``` ``` THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 09.11.2022, ALONG WITH Tr.P(C).548/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` TR.P(C) NOs.548/2021 & 549/2021 ``` ``` -3- ``` ## **COMMON ORDER** As the transfer petitions are between same parties, they are being disposed of by this common order. The parties are, for the sake of convenience, referred to as per the status in Tr.P(C) No.549 of 2021, which is treated as the leading case. 2. The common case of the petitioners in the transfer petitions is: The first petitioner is the wife of the respondent. The second petitioner is the child born in the wedlock between the first petitioner and the respondent. The marital relationship between the first petitioner and the respondent is strained. The respondent had filed O.P. No.858 of 2021 and G.O.P. No.857 of 2021 before the Family Court, Irinjalakuda, for a decree of divorce by Mubarath and an order for the custody of the child, respectively. The respondent is employed abroad. The first petitioner is residing with the second petitioner in Ernakulam. There is no person to chaperone the petitioners from Ernakulam to Irinjalakuda to contest the above cases. ``` TR.P(C) NOs.548/2021 & 549/2021 ``` ``` -4- ``` Hence the transfer petitions. 3. Heard Sri. T. Madhu, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri. Siraj Karoly, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 4. It is well settled in a catena of decisions 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)], _**N.C.V. Aiswarya v. A.S. Sharavana Karthik Sha**_ [2022(5) KHC 185] and _**Valsal Nisha v. Rajesh Soman Nair**_ [2020(8) KLR 475], that the convenience of the woman and children has to be given preference, while ordering the transfer of a case from one Court to another. 5. On a consideration of the pleadings and materials on record, the totality of the facts and circumstances of the cases, the law laid down in the above cited decisions, ``` TR.P(C) NOs.548/2021 & 549/2021 ``` ``` -5- ``` particularly the fact that the first petitioner is the wife and the second petitioner is a five year old girl and that the respondent is employed abroad, 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.857 of 2021 and G.O.P. No. 858 of 2021 from the Family Court, Irinjalakuda to the Family Court, Ernakulam, so that the cases can be consolidated and jointly tried, which will save the precious judicial time and avoid multiplicity of proceedings. In the result, the transfer petitions are allowed as follows: - (i) Tr.P.(C) No.549 of 2021 is allowed by ordering the transfer of G.O.P No.858 of 2021 from the Family Court, Irinjalakuda to the Family Court, Ernakulam. - (ii) Tr.P.(C) No.548 of 2021 is allowed by ordering the transfer of O.P No.857 of 2021 from the Family Court, Irinjalakuda to the Family Court, Ernakulam. - (iii) The parties will be at liberty to move the Family Court, Ernakulam and seek for consolidation and joint trial of ``` TR.P(C) NOs.548/2021 & 549/2021 ``` ``` -6- ``` all the cases between them. - (iv) The Registry shall forward a copy of this common order to the Family Court, Irinjalakuda with instructions to forthwith transmit the records in G.O.P No.858 of 2021 and O.P No.857 of 2021 to the Family Court, Ernakulam. - (v) The Family Court, Ernakulam shall, on receipt of the records in the above cases, issue notice to the parties for their appearance. Sd/- ## **C.S.DIAS, JUDGE** okb/9.11.22 //True copy// P.S. to Judge ``` TR.P(C) NOs.548/2021 & 549/2021 ``` ``` -7- ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF TR.P(C) 549/2021`** ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION IN G.O.P.NO.858/.2021 ON THE FILES OF THE FAMILY COURT, IRINJALAKUDA Annexure A2THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION I.E. OP NO.857/2021 ON THE FILES OF THE FAMILY COURT, IRINJALAKUDA ``` ``` TR.P(C) NOs.548/2021 & 549/2021 ``` ``` -8- ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF TR.P(C) 548/2021`** ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION IN G.O.P NO. 858/2021 ON THE FILES OF THE FAMILY COURT, IRINJALAKKUDA. Annexure A2THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION I.E. OP. NO. 857/2021 ON THE FILES OF THE FAMILY COURT, IRINJALAKKUDA. ```