Tr.P.(C) No. 352 of 2022 (In OPGW 830/2022, Family Court, Mavelikkara)
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- C. S. Dias
- Judgment Date
- 2022-09-19
- Court Decision / Holding
- The transfer petition is allowed. O.P.(G&W) 830/2022 is to be transferred from the Family Court, Mavelikkara, to the Family Court, Thiruvalla. The parties may seek consolidation and joint trial in Thiruvalla. The Registry shall transmit the records, including Annexure-A1 and A2, to Thiruvalla. If the first respondent raises the question of ordinary residence, it shall be considered in Thiruvalla in accordance with the law. The Family Court, Thiruvalla, is to post the records promptly and proceed accordingly.
- Final Disposition
- Transfer of O.P.(G&W) No.830/2022 from the Family Court, Mavelikkara to the Family Court, Thiruvalla. Consolidation and joint trial permitted; records to be transmitted; ordinary residence to be adjudicated lawfully in Thiruvalla.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- M.C. Mathew
Respondents
- Daniel Rajan
- Baby Mathew
- Sara Mathew
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • Abraham Samson
- • Lovely Samson
Counsels for Respondents
- • Rinny Stephen Chamaparampil
- • Asha Elizabeth Mathew
Case Synopsis & Summary
This transfer petition, filed under Section 24 CPC, seeks to move O.P.(G&W) 830/2022 from the Family Court, Mavelikkara, to the Family Court, Thiruvalla. The petitioner, M.C. Mathew, is the father of the third respondent and also holds a power of attorney for the third respondent. The second respondent is his wife, while the first respondent is the husband of the third respondent. The third respondent has filed related petitions in Thiruvalla seeking a divorce and related relief, and a child, Aiden Daniel, is the subject of custody proceedings. The core grievance is that the seven-year-old child currently resides with the third respondent at Vennikulam (within Thiruvalla jurisdiction) and studies there; transferring to Mavelikkara would impose severe hardship on the child. The first respondent counters that the child was originally within Mavelikkara's jurisdiction and was moved by the third respondent, arguing that jurisdiction would not be ousted by transfer. The High Court relies on a line of Supreme Court decisions emphasizing the priority of the convenience and welfare of the mother and child in custody/transfer matters. After considering the pleadings, evidence, and the child’s residence, the Court exercises its discretionary power under Section 24 CPC and directs transfer to Thiruvalla for consolidation and to avoid conflicting decisions, while leaving room for the court below to decide issues of ordinary residence in accordance with law.
Provisions of Law Cited
Legal Doctrines & Maxims
- Convenience and welfare of the wife and child have to be given due priority in transfer of cases (as per Supreme Court decisions cited).
- Discretionary power under Section 24 CPC can be exercised to transfer proceedings to a Court having closer nexus and to avoid hardship to the child.
- Best interests of the child as a guiding principle in custody/transfer matters.
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioner contends that the seven-year-old child resides with the maternal side in Vennikulam, Thiruvalla, and studies there; transferring the case to Thiruvalla would consolidate related proceedings and avoid frequent travel and conflicting orders. Since he holds a Power of Attorney for the third respondent, he can contest the proceedings before the Thiruvalla court. The Court is urged to exercise its discretion under Section 24 CPC to transfer O.P.(G&W) 830/2022 to the Thiruvalla Court, considering the child’s welfare and convenience.
Contentions of Respondents
The first respondent contends that the child was originally within the Mavelikkara jurisdiction and was taken by the third respondent to Vennikulam; removal from Mavelikkara does not deprive that court of jurisdiction. The petition for transfer should be dismissed on the ground that the child’s ordinary residence and custody are issues that can be resolved in the Mavelikkara court.
Cited Precedents (6)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sumitha Sing v. Kumar Sanjay and another | (2001) 10 SCC 41 | Positive | The court cites this and other decisions to emphasize that the convenience of the mother and child weighs in transfer decisions. |
| Mona Aresh Goel v. Aresh Satya Goel | (2000) 9 SCC 255 | Positive | Supports prioritizing the child’s and mother’s convenience in custody/transfer issues. |
| Vaishali Shridhar Jagtap v. Shridhar Vishwanath Jagtap | AIR 2016 SC 3584 | Positive | Affirms preference for convenience and welfare of the woman and child in such orders. |
| Santhini V. Vijaya Venkatesh | 2017 (4) KLT 415 (SC) | Positive | Reinforces the principle that the convenience of women and children impacts transfer/custody outcomes. |
| N.C.V. Aiswarya v. A.S. Sharavana Karthik Sha | 2022(5) KHC 185 | Positive | Kerala High Court emphasizes prioritizing the child’s/woman’s convenience in related matters. |
| Valsal Nisha v. Rajesh Soman Nair | 2020(8) KLR 475 | Positive | Supports weighting the child’s convenience in transfer proceedings. |
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 Tr.P.(C) No. 352 of 2022 (In OPGW 830/2022, Family Court, Mavelikkara) and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.