Tr.P.(C). No.388 of 2021

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: A. Badharudeen, J.
Judgment Date: 2022-04-04
Court Decision / Holding: Transfer Petition allowed. O.P.1273/2021 pending before the Family Court, Ernakulam shall stand transferred to the Family Court, Mavelikkara. Family Court, Ernakulam to forward records to Family Court, Mavelikkara forthwith. Parties to appear before the Family Court, Mavelikkara on 18.05.2022. Registry to forward a copy of the order to the Family Court, Ernakulam and Family Court, Mavelikkara within 7 days.
Final Disposition: Transfer petition allowed; matter transferred to the Family Court, Mavelikkara; records to be transmitted; appearance fixed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Anjali Krishna Madhusoodhanan Pillai

Respondents

Sudeesh Sadasiva Kurup

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• K.R. Sunil
• Eashwary V
• Krishna Suresh
• Aiswarya Venugopal

Counsels for Respondents

• M.S. Sajeev Kumar
• Lakshmi S. Kumar
• A.N. Jyothilekshmi

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Transfer Petition (Civil) No.388 of 2021 involves Anjali Krishna Madhusoodhanan Pillai, the petitioner-wife, seeking the transfer of O.P. No.1273 of 2021, presently pending before the Family Court, Ernakulam, to the Family Court at Mavelikkara under Section 24 CPC. The petition argues that transfer would advance the convenience of the wife and ensure easier access to judicial proceedings, a common consideration in matrimonial-disputes where the wife’s convenience is given precedence. The respondent-husband resists the transfer, invoking the traditional view that the court should apply a broad leniency toward transfer petitions filed by women, but cites Anindita Das v. Srijit Das (2006) 9 SCC 197 as a case where a deviation from that leniency occurred when the husband offered to bear all travel and accommodation expenses for the wife. The court recalls the general rule that the convenience of the wife should predominate in such petitions, while acknowledging that deviation is permissible in appropriate circumstances. It notes that the respondent is represented by his father, the Power of Attorney holder, and that travel burdens can be substantial without this deviation. On balance, the court allows the transfer, directing the Ernakulam Family Court to transfer the matter to Mavelikkara and to forward records forthwith, with appearance fixed for 18.05.2022 and copies to be circulated to the involved courts.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Convenience of the wife shall be decisive in transfer petitions involving matrimonial disputes.
Deviation from this principle is permissible only in appropriate cases.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that the petitioner’s convenience should govern the transfer of the ongoing O.P. to a court closer to her residence, arguing that the wife’s welfare and access to justice require consideration of travel and logistics. The desire to avoid prolonged travel and the burden on the wife and any accompanying person underpin the request for transfer. The reliance is placed on prevailing principles that favor the wife’s convenience in matrimonial petitions.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondent relies on typical grounds that courts should not automatically grant transfers solely on the pleadings of the wife. He emphasizes the need to consider decisions like Anindita Das v. Srijit Das and argues for strict scrutiny of petitions, noting that the court must assess merits and avoid misusing leniency.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Anindita Das v. Srijit Das	(2006) 9 SCC 197	Partly Overruled / Limited	The court references the decision but states it is not inclined to follow that ratio in the present case, indicating a limited deviation from that precedent.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN MONDAY, THE 4[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2022 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1944** **TR.P(C) NO. 388 OF 2021** **IN THE MATTER OF O.P NO.1273 OF 2021 PRESENTLY PENDING BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT,ERNAKULAM** ## **PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:** **ANJALI KRISHNA MADHUSOODHANAN PILLAI, AGED 30, D/O.MADHUSOODHANAN PILLAI,** **KRISHNANJALI, VENMONY POST, CHENGANNOOR TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-689509.** **BY ADVS. K.R.SUNIL EASHWARY.V KRISHNA SURESH AISWARYA VENUGOPAL** ## **RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:** **SUDEESH SADASIVA KURUP, S/O.M.P.SADASIVA KURUP, AGED 31, SERVING ABROAD HAVING PRESENT ADDRESS AS 'SREERAGAM', HOUSE NO.53/2740,RAIL NAGAR, CROSS ROAD NO.1, PONNURUNNI POST, PIN-682019, KANAYANNUR TALUK,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT AND HAVING PERMANENT ADDRESS AS 'MAMPRAVILA THEKKETHIL', CHERIYANAD, CHENGANNOOR, REPRESENTED BY HIS DULY CONSTITUTED POWER OF ATTORNEY AND FATHER SHRI.M.P.SADASIVA KURUP, AGED 64 YEARS, BUSINESS HAVING PRESENT ADDRESS AS 'SREERAGAM', HOUSE NO.53/2740,** 2 Tr.P.(C). No.388 of 2021 **RAIL NAGAR,CROSS ROAD NO.1, PONNURUNNI POST, PIN-682019, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS. M.S.SAJEEV KUMAR LAKSHMI S KUMAR A.N.JYOTHILEKSHMI** **THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04.04.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** 3 Tr.P.(C). No.388 of 2021 ## _**A. BADHARUDEEN, J.**_ ================================ _Tr.P.(C). No.388 of 2021_ ================================ _Dated this the 4[th] day of April, 2022_ ## _**O R D E R**_ In this petition filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure the petitioner wife seeks transfer of O.P.No.1273 of 2021 pending before Family Court, Ernakulam, to Family Court, Mavelikkara. 2. Advocate Kumar for the M.S.Sajeev appears respondent husband. 3. Heard both sides. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued to canvass the transfer as sought for, highlighting the general law that convenience of the wife is predominant while considering transfer in the matter of matrimonial disputes. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent 4 Tr.P.(C). No.388 of 2021 would submit that though many decisions of the Apex Court are there in favour of the transfer sought for by the wife, in one decision reported in [(2006) 9 SCC 197], _**Anindita Das v. Srijit Das**_ , the Apex Court deviated from the said stand and the transfer sought for by the wife was disallowed in a case where the husband had expressed willingness to pay all expenses for travel and stay of the wife and her companion. In para.7 and para.8 the Apex Court observed as under: _"7. Even otherwise, it must be seen that at one stage this Court was showing leniency to ladies. But since then it has been found that a large number of transfer petitions are filed by women taking advantage of the leniency taken by this Court. On an average at least 10 to 15 transfer petitions are on Board of each Court on each admission day. It is, therefore, clear that leniency of this Court is being misused by the women._ _8. This Court is now required to consider each petition on its merit. In this case the ground taken by the wife is that she has a small child and that there is nobody to keep her child. The child, in this case, is six years old and there are grand parents available to look after the child. The Respondent is willing to pay all expenses for travel and stay for the petitioner and her companion for every visit when the petitioner is required to attend the Court at Delhi. Thus, the ground that the Petitioner has no source of income is adequately met."_ 6. Here the learned counsel for the respondent would 5 Tr.P.(C). No.388 of 2021 submit that the power of attorney holder has to conduct the case for and on behalf of the respondent, since the respondent has been employed in Canada. Therefore, the age old father of the respondent shall not be disturbed by transferring the case pending within the limit of his jurisdiction. 7. The general law is that convenience of the wife shall be decisive in transfer petitions involving matrimonial disputes. Deviation therefrom is permissible only in appropriate cases. Even going by the ratio in _**Anindita Das v. Srijit Das**_ 's case ( _supra_ ), therein also the Apex Court took a deviation when the respondent/husband agreed to pay all expenses for travel and stay for the petitioner wife and her companion for every visit when the petitioner is required to attend the Court at Delhi. 8. Refusing transfer by imposing such a condition in the case on hand, would create huge finance burden to the respondent husband, and therefore, I am not inclined to follow the said ratio in the present case. 6 Tr.P.(C). No.388 of 2021 9. Apart from that, the respondent is represented by the power of attorney holder, his father, who is none other than an agent to conduct the case for and on behalf of the respondent. There is no compulsion to the respondent to appoint his father alone as his power of attorney, who is aged and ailed. He could very well appoint another man, capable of conducting his case by travelling and otherwise. Therefore, based on the contentions raised by the respondent, the transfer cannot be disallowed and the transfer as sought for is liable to be allowed giving predominance to the convenience of the wife. 10. In the result, this Transfer Petition is allowed. O.P.No.1273/2021 pending before the Family Court, Ernakulam shall stand transferred to the Family Court, Mavelikkara. 11. Family Court, Ernakulam is directed to forward the case records to the Family Court, Mavelikkara forthwith. 12. Parties shall appear before the Family Court, Mavelikkara on 18.05.2022. 7 Tr.P.(C). No.388 of 2021 Registry shall forward a copy of this order to the Family Court, Ernakulam and Family Court, Mavelikkara, within 7 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order or its production by the concerned parties, for information and compliance. _Sd/-_ ## _**(A. BADHARUDEEN, JUDGE)**_ _rtr/_ 8 Tr.P.(C). No.388 of 2021 ## **APPENDIX OF TR.P(C) 388/2021** ## **PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES** **Annexure A-1** **THE TRUE COPY OF THE O.P NO.1273 OF 2021 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM.** ## **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS** **EXHIBIT R-1 TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE WITH UHID NO.20210024974 DATED 15.09.2021 ISSUED BY DOCTOR M.M ABDUL SHUKKOOR, GOVT.AYURVEDA COLLEGE HOSPITAL, THRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM. EXHIBIT R-2 TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE SUMMARY 2112-2019, ISSUED BY DR.GEORGE MOTHI JUSTIN, CONSULTANT PULMONOLOGIST, MEDICAL TRUST HOSPITAL, ERNAKULAM.**