Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeTransfer petitions allowed; O.P.(Other) Nos. 10...

TR.P(C) NO. 449 OF 2021 (and connected cases)

Case / Petition Number:TR.P(C) NO. 449 OF 2021 (and connected with TR.P(C) NO. 559 OF 2021)

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • V.G. Arun
Judgment Date
2021-12-16
Court Decision / Holding
Transfer Petitions are allowed. O.P.(Other) Nos. 1070/2021 and 1071/2021 shall be transferred to the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The parties shall appear before the transferee court on 14.01.2022, and the transferee court shall endeavour to dispose of the interim injunction application in O.P. 1071/2021 expeditiously, within one month. The transferee court shall not insist on the personal presence of the Power of Attorney holder of the first respondent/husband, unless absolutely necessary.
Final Disposition
Transfer petitions allowed; O.P.(Other) Nos. 1070/2021 and 1071/2021 transferred to the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram; directions issued for hearing and expeditious disposal of the interim injunction matter; attendance of the Power of Attorney holder not mandatory unless necessary; date fixed for appearance 14.01.2022.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • GAYATHRI S NAIR
  • SURENDRAN NAIR
  • K.J. SREEDEVI

Respondents

  • PRAMOD T.R

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • M. DINESH

Counsels for Respondents

  • • P. SANJAY
  • • A. PARVATHI MENON
  • • BIJU MEENATTOOR
  • • PAUL VARGHESE (PALLATH)
  • • P.A. MOHAMMED ASLAM
  • • KIRAN NARAYANAN

Case Synopsis & Summary

This transfer petition before the Kerala High Court concerns matrimonial disputes between Gayathri S Nair and Pramod T.R, with related petitions filed in the Family Courts of Kollam and Thiruvananthapuram. The first petitioner-wife seeks transfer of the husband’s Original Petitions (O.P. Nos. 1070/2021 and 1071/2021) from Kollam to Thiruvananthapuram to be heard together with her own O.P. No. 1499/2021 pending in Thiruvananthapuram, and for resolution of ancillary reliefs including recovery of gold ornaments, money, and injunctive relief. The husband’s petitions seek reliefs including a permanent injunction against the wife and her parents and damages; he is represented by a Power of Attorney holder, i.e., his mother. The court examined convenience, domicile, and potential for inconsistent orders, and ultimately allowed the transfer based on the wife’s permanent residence in Thiruvananthapuram and the need for coordinated adjudication. The order directs the transfer of the relevant petitions to the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram, with timelines for expeditious disposal of the interim injunction matter and guidance on attendance before the transferee court.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 19 of CPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Dominus litis
  • Convenience of the wife should be given preference in matrimonial disputes

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contended that in matrimonial disputes the convenience of the wife should be given precedence, and since the wife is a permanent resident of Thiruvananthapuram, it would be appropriate to transfer the husband’s petitions from Kollam to Thiruvananthapuram so that all related matters can be heard together. They emphasized that both sides have filed original petitions for reliefs including the return of gold ornaments and money, and that a coordinated hearing would promote judicial economy and prevent conflicting orders. They also argued that interim injunction matters should be expedited in the transferee court and that the Power of Attorney holder should not be unduly forced to attend in person.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondent contended that O.P. 1071/2021 involves damages and that Section 19 CPC would apply, giving the plaintiff dominus litis the option to choose the forum. They argued that the High Court should not transfer blithely and that the plaintiff should be allowed to pursue the forum he selected. They also highlighted the need to manage any derogatory comments through appropriate court processes and that interim issues could be dealt with by the transferee court.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Indian Overseas Bank, Madras v. Chemical Construction Co. and Others1979 KHC 692 (SC)Partly Overruled / LimitedCited to support the proposition that the plaintiff (dominous litis) has the option to choose the forum; however, the High Court ultimately transfers the matter in light of convenience, indicating a limited or partial application of the precedent.

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 TR.P(C) NO. 449 OF 2021 (and connected cases) 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 V.G.ARUN ``` ``` THURSDAY, THE 16[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943 ``` ``` TR.P(C) NO. 449 OF 2021 ``` ## **`AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP 1071/2021 OF FAMILY COURT,KOLLAM PETITIONER/S/RESPONDENTS:`** ``` 1GAYATHRI.S. NAIR AGED 34 YEARS, D/O SURENDRAN NAIR, SREERAGAM, TC 11/770(NEW TC 14/626), MOSQUE LANE, KESAVADASAPURAM, PATTOM P.O, ULLOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. ``` ``` 2SURENDRAN NAIR AGED 70 YEARS, S/O BHASKARAN NAIR, SREERAGAM, TC 11/770(NEW TC 14/626), MOSQUE LANE, KESAVADASAPURAM, PATTOM P.O, ULLOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 3K.J.SREEDEVI AGED 65 YEARS, W/O SURENDRANA NAIR, SREERAGAM, TC 11/770(NEW TC 14/626), MOSQUE LANE, KESAVADASAPURAM, PATTOM P.O, ULLOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV M.DINESH ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S/PETITIONER:`** ``` PRAMOD T.R AGED 40 YEARS, S/O RAJENDRAN PILLAI, THAMARASSERIL, ADICHANALLOOR P.O,, ADICHANALLOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-691573. BY ADVS. P.SANJAY A.PARVATHI MENON BIJU MEENATTOOR PAUL VARGHESE (PALLATH) P.A.MOHAMMED ASLAM KIRAN NARAYANAN ``` ## **`TR.P(C) NO. 449 OF 2021 AND CONNECTED CASE`** ``` 2 ``` ``` PRASOON SUNNY RAHUL RAJ P. ``` ``` THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.12.2021, ALONG WITH Tr.P(C).559/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ## **`TR.P(C) NO. 449 OF 2021 AND CONNECTED CASE`** ## **`3`** ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN ``` ``` THURSDAY, THE 16[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943 TR.P(C) NO. 559 OF 2021 ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP(OTHERS) 1070/2021 OF FAMILY COURT,KOLLAM ``` ## **`PETITIONER/S/RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 GAYATHRI S NAIR AGED 34 YEARS`** ``` D/O. SURENDRAN NAIR, SREERAGAM, TC. 11/770(NEW TC 14/626) MOSQUE LANE, KESAVADASAPURAM, PATTOM P.O, ULLOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 2SURENDRAN NAIR. ``` ``` AGED 68 YEARS, S/O. BHASKARAN NAIR, SREERAGAM, TC. 11/770(NEW TC 14/626) MOSQUE LANE, KESAVADASAPURAM, PATTOM P.O, ULLOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. ``` ``` 3K.J. SREEDEVI. AGED 63 YEARS, W/O. SURENDRAN NAIR, SREERAGAM, TC. 11/770(NEW TC 14/626) MOSQUE LANE, KESAVADASAPURAM, PATTOM P.O, ULLOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. ``` ``` BY ADV M.DINESH ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S/PETITIONER:`** ``` PRAMOD T.R. S/O. RAJENDRAN PILLAI, THAMARASSERIL, ADICHANALLOOR P.O, ADICHANALLOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691573. ``` ``` BY ADVS. P.SANJAY ``` ## **`TR.P(C) NO. 449 OF 2021 AND CONNECTED CASE`** ``` 4 ``` ``` A.PARVATHI MENON BIJU MEENATTOOR PAUL VARGHESE (PALLATH) P.A.MOHAMMED ASLAM KIRAN NARAYANAN PRASOON SUNNY RAHUL RAJ P. ``` ``` THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.12.2021, ALONG WITH Tr.P(C).449/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ## **`TR.P(C) NO. 449 OF 2021 AND CONNECTED CASE`** ## **`5`** ## **O R D E R** **Dated this the 16[th] day of December, 2021** The spouses are at loggerheads and have resorted to legal remedies. The first petitioner/wife has filed O.P.No.1499 of 2021 before the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram for divorce and for recovery of gold ornaments and money. The first respondent/ husband, has approached the Family Court, Kollam with O.P.(Other) No.1070 of 2021, for recovery of gold ornaments and money and O.P.No.1071 of 2021 for permanent prohibitory injunction against the wife and her parents from trespassing into the respondent’s residence and to restrain the petitioner from making derogatory comments against the respondent and his parents through social media. The petitioner, who is permanently residing within the limits of the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram seeks transfer of the original petitions filed by the husband from the Family Court, Kollam to the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. ## **`TR.P(C) NO. 449 OF 2021 AND CONNECTED CASE`** ## **`6`** 2. Heard. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the legal position, that in matrimonial disputes, convenience of the wife should be given preference is well settled and both parties having filed original petitions for return of gold ornaments and money, it is only appropriate that the original petition filed by the husband, is transferred and taken up along with the original petition filed by the wife. Learned Counsel for the respondents contends that O.P.No.1071 of 2021 being one for damages, Section 19 of CPC would apply and hence, it is for the plaintiff to decide the forum. 4. Reliance is placed on the decision in **Indian Overseas Bank, Madras v. Chemical Construction Co. and Others [1979 KHC 692 (SC)]** to contend that the plaintiff being the dominus litis, has the option to decide the forum and High Court should not order transfer blithely. 5. Having considered all aspects, I find the balance of ## **`TR.P(C) NO. 449 OF 2021 AND CONNECTED CASE`** ``` 7 ``` convenience to be in favour of the wife, she being a permanent resident of Thiruvananthapuram and the first respondent/ husband being represented by his mother, the Power of Attorney Holder. 6. Learned Counsel for the respondents pointed out that an application for interim injunction is pending consideration and if at all the original petitions are transferred, there may be a direction to the transferee court to pass orders on the application at the earliest, since, utilising the interregnum between transfer from the Family Court at Kollam to the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram, the wife may indulge in making further derogatory comments against the husband. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the wife refutes the allegation of having made any derogatory comments and that she has been advised to refrain from doing so. In the result, Transfer Petitions are allowed. O.P.(Other) ## **`TR.P(C) NO. 449 OF 2021 AND CONNECTED CASE`** ``` 8 ``` No.1070 of 2021 and O.P.No. 1071 of 2021 shall forthwith be transferred to the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The parties shall appear before the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram on 14.01.2022. On appearance of the parties, the transferee court shall take earnest efforts to dispose of the application of interim injunction pending in O.P.No.1071 of 2021 expeditiously and at any rate, within one month. The transferee court shall not insist on the personal presence of the Power of Attorney holder of the first respondent/husband, unless absolutely necessary. Sd/- ``` V.G.ARUN ``` ``` JUDGE ``` RK ## **`TR.P(C) NO. 449 OF 2021 AND CONNECTED CASE`** ## **`9`** ## **`APPENDIX OF TR.P(C) 559/2021`** ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1TRUE COPY OF THE O.P NO. 1499/2021 ON THE FILE OF FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 26.07.2021. Annexure A2TRUE COPY OF THE O.P(OTHER), NO. 1070/2021 ON THE FILE OF FAMILY COURT, KOLLAM DATED 13.08.2021. ``` ## **`TR.P(C) NO. 449 OF 2021 AND CONNECTED CASE`** ## **`10`** ## **`APPENDIX OF TR.P(C) 449/2021`** ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1TRUE COPY OF THE O.P.NO.1499/2021 ON THE FILE OF FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 26/7/2021. Annexure A2TRUE COPY OF THE O.P.NO.1071/2021 ON THE FILE OF FAMILY COURT, KOLLAM DATED 13/8/2021. ```