Susan George v. Sinu Sam Oommen

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: V.G. Arun
Judgment Date: 2021-07-06
Court Decision / Holding: Tr.P.C 542/2020 allowed; Tr.P.(C) Nos. 108/2021 and 122/2021 dismissed. O.P.(Div) No.1461/2019 (Family Court, Ettumanoor) transferred to the Family Court, Mavelikkara. Parties to appear before Mavelikkara on 06.08.2021.
Final Disposition: Partial grant in favor of the wife: TR.P(C) 542/2020 allowed; TR.P(C) 108/2021 and 122/2021 dismissed; OP(Div) 1461/2019 transferred to Mavelikkara; appearance fixed for 06.08.2021.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

SUSAN GEORGE
SINU SAM OOMMEN

Respondents

SINU SAM OOMMEN
SUSAN GEORGE

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• A. Shafeeq (Kayamkulam)
• Latheesh Sebastian

Counsels for Respondents

• A. Shafeek (Kayamkulam)
• Latheesh Sebastian
• Shaila Rani S.B.

Case Synopsis & Summary

These are three transfer petitions arising from matrimonial disputes before Kerala High Court. In TR.P(C) 542/2020, Susan George seeks transfer of OP (Div) 1461/2019 from the Family Court, Ettumanoor, to the Family Court, Mavelikkara, contending that she is a permanent resident of Venmony within Mavelikkara and that the present forum is inconvenient for her and harassing in nature. In TR.P(C) 108/2021 and 122/2021, Sinu Sam Oommen seeks transfer of OP 601/2020 from Mavelikkara and OP (Div) 1461/2019 from Ettumanoor to Thiruvalla, arguing convenience due to both parties working near Thiruvananthapuram and proximity to Thiruvalla. The court heard the arguments, with the wife’s counsel urging priority to the wife’s convenience, citing Supreme Court directives that grants of transfer in matrimonial matters must be decided on merits and favor the wife’s convenience where possible. The husband’s counsel argued that the Thiruvalla forum would be convenient for him given work arrangements and his parents’ location. The judge noted that the Supreme Court has urged case-by-case evaluation and that the convenience of the wife should be preferred. Ultimately, the court allowed TR.P(C) 542/2020, dismissed TR.P(C) 108/2021 and TR.P(C) 122/2021, and ordered that OP (Div) 1461/2019 be transferred to Mavelikkara, directing appearance on 06.08.2021.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Convenience of the wife should be preferred in matrimonial transfer petitions.
Each case to be decided on its merits; reliance on Supreme Court guidelines for transfer petitions.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The wife contends that her permanent residence lies within the jurisdiction of the Mavelikkara Family Court (Mallappally/ Venmony area) and that transferring to Thiruvalla would cause unnecessary hardship to elderly parents and would not serve the cause of justice. She argues that the marriage was solemnized in Ettumanoor and that the wife’s choice of forum should be respected when it aligns with convenience and proximity; she relies on Supreme Court precedents emphasizing the wife’s convenience in matrimonial transfer petitions.

Contentions of Respondents

The husband argues that transfer to Thiruvalla would be more convenient since both parties work near Thiruvananthapuram; he asserts that the wife’s claims of inconvenience are not absolute and that the court must consider merits. He also notes that the divorce petition was filed in Ettumanoor and that the wife’s counterclaims are part of a broader strategy. He contends that the Supreme Court has not laid down an absolute rule prioritizing the wife in every case; rather, every transfer petition should be decided on its merits.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Sumita Singh v Kumar Sanjay and another	[(2001) 10 SCC 41]	Positive	Court relied on the principle that convenience of the wife should be preferred in matrimonial transfer petitions.
Rajani Kishore Pardesh v Kishore Babulal Pardesh	[(2005) 1 SCC 237]	Positive	Court cited this decision to reinforce preference for wife’s convenience in transfer petitions.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **TUESDAY, THE 6[TH] DAY OF JULY 2021 / 15TH ASHADHA, 1943 TR.P(C) NO. 542 OF 2020** **OPDIV 1461/2019 OF FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM** ## **PETITIONER/S:** SUSAN GEORGE, AGED 36 YEARS D/O.K.S.GEORGE, KRUPALAYAM, PUNTHALA P.O., VENMONY VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-689 509. BY ADV A.SHAFEEK (KAYAMKULAM) ## **RESPONDENT/S:** SINU SAM OOMMEN, AGED 42 YEARS S/O.REV.T.V.SAMKUTTY, THOPPIL HOUSE, MALLAPPALLY WEST P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689 585. BY ADVS. SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN SMT.SHAILA RANI S.B. **THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.06.2021 ALONG WITH TRPC 108 &122/2021, THE COURT ON 06.07.2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **Tr.P.(C) Nos.542/2020 and 108 & 122/2021** 2 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **TUESDAY, THE 6[TH] DAY OF JULY 2021 / 15TH ASHADHA, 1943 TR.P(C) NO. 108 OF 2021** **OP 601/2020 OF FAMILY COURT, MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA** ## **PETITIONER/S:** 1 SINU SAM OOMMEN AGED 42 YEARS S/O.REV. T.V. SAMKUTTY, THOPPIL HOUSE, MALLPPALLY WEST P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2 REV. T.V.SAMKUTTY AGED 79 YEARS S/O.VARGHESE, THOPPIL HOUSE, MALLPPALLY WEST P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 3 SARAMMA OOMMEN AGED 76 YEARS W/O.REV. T.V.SAMKUTTY, THOPPIL HOUSE, MALLPPALLY WEST P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV LATHEESH SEBASTIAN ## **RESPONDENT/S:** SUSAN GEORGE D/O.K.S.GEORGE, AGED 36 YEARS, KRUPALAYAM, PUNTHALA P.O., VENMONY VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT 689 509 BY ADV SRI.A.SHAFEEK (KAYAMKULAM) **THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.06.2021 ALONG WITH TRPC 542/2020 & 122/2021, THE COURT ON 06.07.2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **Tr.P.(C) Nos.542/2020 and 108 & 122/2021** 3 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **TUESDAY, THE 6[TH] DAY OF JULY 2021 / 15TH ASHADHA, 1943 TR.P(C) NO. 122 OF 2021** **OPDIV 1461/2019 OF FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM, KOTTAYAM PETITIONER/S:** SINU SAM OOMMEN AGED 42 YEARS S/O. REV.T.V.SAMKUTTY, THOPPIL HOUSE, MALLAPPALLY WEST P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADVS. LATHEESH SEBASTIAN SMT.SHAILA RANI S.B. ## **RESPONDENT/S:** SUSAN GEORGE AGED 36 YEARS D/O. K.S.GEORGE, KRUPALAYAM, PUNTHALA P.O., VENMONY VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-689 509. **THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION** **ON 30.06.2021 ALONG WITH TRPC 542/2020 & 108/2021, THE COURT ON 06.07.2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **Tr.P.(C) Nos.542/2020 and 108 & 122/2021** 4 ## **ORDER** **Dated this the 6[th] day of July, 2021** **The matrimonial discord among spouses resulted in a spate of litigation. The respondent/husband filed O.P.(Div) No.1461 of 2019 before the Family Court, Ettumanoor. In turn, the petitioner/wife filed O.P.No.601 of 2020 before the Family Court, Mavelikkara seeking return of the gold ornaments and money given at the time of marriage. Tr.P.(C) No.542 of 2020 is filed by the wife seeking transfer of O.P.(Div) No.1461 of 2019 to the Family Court, Mavelikkara and Tr.P.(C) Nos.108 of 2021 and 122 of 2021, by the husband seeking transfer of O.P.No.601 of 2020 from the Family Court, Mavelikkara and O.P.(Div) No.1461 of 2019 from the Family Court, Ettumanoor to the Family** **Tr.P.(C) Nos.542/2020 and 108 & 122/2021** 5 ## **Court, Thiruvalla.** **2. The wife contends that, being a permanent resident within the limits of the Mavelikkara Family Court, she had chosen to file her case in that court. Since both spouses are working at Thiruvananthapuram, Mavelikkara is more proximate than Ettumanoor.** **3. According to the husband, he had earlier worked at Thiruvananthapuram, but is now employed at InfoPark in Ernakulam. The Family Court at Thiruvalla is more convenient for both, as Thiruvalla is only a short distance from Mavelikkara and his parental house is at Mallappally, within the limits of Thiruvalla Family Court. The husband has further stated that he has to undertake overseas journeys in connection with his employment and therefore, he is proposing to appoint his father as power of** **Tr.P.(C) Nos.542/2020 and 108 & 122/2021** 6 **attorney holder to contest the cases on his behalf. That, his father aged 79 and mother 76 years, and have unnecessarily been arrayed as respondents in the original petition filed by the wife. They will be put to extreme difficulties if they are compelled to appear before the Family Court at Mavelikkara.** **4. Heard Sri.A.Shafeek, learned Counsel appearing for the wife and Sri.Latheesh Sebastian, learned counsel for the husband.** **5. Learned Counsel for the wife submitted that, despite being a permanent resident of Mallappally in Pathanamthitta District, the husband had deliberately filed O.P.(Div) No.1461 of 2019 before the Family Court, Ettumanoor with the sole intention of harassing the wife. The attempt to get the cases transferred to the Family Court, Thiruvalla is also ill motivated. The** **Tr.P.(C) Nos.542/2020 and 108 & 122/2021** 7 **proposal of the husband to appoint his father as power of attorney is not a valid ground for transferring the cases to Thiruvalla. The contention that the husband’s aged parents will be put to hardship if they are compelled to appear before the Family Court, Mavelikkara cannot also be countenanced, since their personal appearance is not necessary on all posting dates. Learned Counsel placed reliance on the decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court to contend that, while considering requests for transfer pertaining to matrimonial cases, convenience of the wife should be given priority.** **6. Learned counsel for the husband refuted the contentions and submitted that the original petition for divorce was filed before the Ettumanoor Family Court, since the marriage was solemnised within the jurisdictional limits of** **Tr.P.(C) Nos.542/2020 and 108 & 122/2021** 8 **that court. According to the learned Counsel, the wife being employed at Thiruvananthapuram, will not be put to any inconvenience by attending the Family Court at Thiruvalla and the original petition for return of gold ornaments is filed only as a counterblast to the petition for divorce filed by the husband. It is contended that the Honourable Supreme Court has not laid down any absolute rule that in every matrimonial case, convenience of the wife should be given priority. On the other hand, on noticing that the indulgence shown by the courts in the matter of transfer is being misused by ladies, the Apex Court has directed each case to be decided on its merits.** **7. The wife being a permanent resident of Venmony within the limits of the Family Court, Mavelikkara, she cannot be compelled to attend the Family Court at Thiruvalla to suit the convenience** **Tr.P.(C) Nos.542/2020 and 108 & 122/2021** 9 **of the husband, especially when the divorce petition is filed by the husband before the Family Court at Ettumanoor. That, the husband’s parents are residing within the limits of the Family Court, Thiruvalla and he is proposing to appoint his father as power of attorney holder or that the wife is employed at Thiruvananthapuram, are not valid reasons for transferring the case to the Thiruvalla Family Court.** **8. As held by the Honourable Supreme Court in** _**Sumita Singh v Kumar Sanjay and another [(2001) 10 SCC 41], Rajani Kishore Pardesh v Kishore Babulal Pardesh [(2005) 1 SCC 237]**_ **and a plethora of other decisions, in transfer petitions arising from matrimonial cases, convenience of the wife should be preferred over that of the husband. Hence, I am inclined to allow the request of the wife for transferring the divorce petition filed by the** **Tr.P.(C) Nos.542/2020 and 108 & 122/2021** 10 **husband to the Family Court, Mavelikkara.** **In the result, the Tr.P.C No.542 of 2020 is allowed and Tr.P.(C) Nos.108 and 122 of 2021 are dismissed. O.P.(Div) No.1461 of 2019 on the files of the Family Court, Ettumanoor shall forth with be transferred to the Family Court, Mavelikkara. The parties shall appear before the Family Court, Mavelikkara on 06.08.2021.** **sd/-** **V.G.ARUN JUDGE** **Scl/** 11 ## **Tr.P.(C) Nos.542/2020 and 108 & 122/2021** ## **APPENDIX OF TR.P(C) 542/2020** PETITIONER ANNEXURE ANNEXURE 1 TRUE COPY OF THE OP(DIV) NO.1461/2019 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, ETTUMANOOR. ANNEXURE 2 TRUE COPY OF THE OP NO.601/2020 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, MAVELIKKARA. ## **Tr.P.(C) Nos.542/2020 and 108 & 122/2021** 12 ## **APPENDIX OF TR.P(C) 108/2021** PETITIONER ANNEXURE ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL PETITION IN OP NO.601/2020 OF FAMILY COURT, MAVELIKKARA. ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL PETITION IN O.P(DIVORCE) NO.1461/2019 OF FAMILY COURT, ETTUMANOOR **Tr.P.(C) Nos.542/2020 and 108 & 122/2021** 13 ## **APPENDIX OF TR.P(C) 122/2021** PETITIONER ANNEXURE ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF ORIGINAL PETITION IN O.P. (DIVORCE) NO.1461/2019 OF FAMILY COURT, ETTUMANOOR. ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COY OF THE ORIGINAL PETITION IN OP NO.601/2020 OF FAMILY COURT, MAVELIKKARA.