High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2023-01-11Transfer petitions disposed: 375/2021 dismissed...

TR.P(C) Nos. 375 & 521 of 2021

Case / Petition Number:TR.P(C) Nos. 375 & 521 of 2021

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C. S. Dias
Judgment Date: 2023-01-11
Court Decision / Holding: The common order disposes of the petitions as follows: (i) TR.P(C) No.375/2021 is dismissed. (ii) TR.P(C) No.521/2021 is allowed by transferring OP No.1183/2020 from the Family Court, Nedumangad, to the Family Court, Ettumanoor. (iii) The parties may move for consolidation and joint trial of all cases between them. (iv) The Registry shall forward a copy of the order to the Family Court, Nedumangad with instructions to transmit Annexure A2 records to Ettumanoor, and (v) the Ettumanoor Court shall post the case upon receipt. (vi) Personal appearance may be dispensed with in appropriate circumstances.
Final Disposition: Transfer petitions disposed: 375/2021 dismissed; 521/2021 allowed with OP 1183/2020 transferred to Ettumanoor; liberty to consolidate; records to be transmitted; Ettumanoor to post the matter; personal appearance dispensation permitted where appropriate.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Rinimol P. Das

Respondents

Gomathi
Pritica
Leena
Megha

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• R.N. Sandeep
• Keerthi Vijayan

Counsels for Respondents

• A. K. Haridas

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a common transfer petition judgment of the High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam, dealing with matrimonial-dispute related proceedings arising from late Sunil Kumar’s properties. The leading petition, TR.P(C) No.375/2021, is filed by Rinimol P. Das, who describes herself as Sunilkumar’s mother, challenging the transferability and venue of OP No.430/2020 before the Family Court, Ettumanoor, seeking to relocate proceedings to Ettumanoor. She contends that she, aged 77, would find it difficult to travel long distances to contest the matter in Nedumangad and that the plaint property lies within Ettumanoor’s jurisdiction. The respondents in this petition include Gomathi and others, who claim to be Sunil Kumar’s wife and daughters, as well as other family members. TR.P(C) No.521/2021 is instituted by the first respondent in the leading case to transfer OP No.1183/2020 from the Family Court, Nedumangad, to Ettumanoor, arguing residence in Changanacheri and lack of a chaperone to Nedumangad for a minor child’s matter. The Court notices the evolving legal framework on transfer of matrimonial proceedings, emphasizing a Supreme Court-guided principle that the convenience of the woman and children governs transfer decisions, and ultimately disposes the petitions by dismissing 375/2021 and allowing 521/2021, with directions for records transfer, possible consolidation, and dispensation of personal appearance where appropriate.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Convenience of the woman and children as the governing consideration in transfer of matrimonial disputes
Law on transfer of proceedings is not res integra; weightage to convenience and hardship as per Supreme Court precedents

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner in TR.P(C) No.375/2021, Rinimol P. Das, asserts that the plaint property is within the jurisdiction of the Family Court, Ettumanoor, and that she, a 77-year-old, would face considerable hardship in traveling to Nedumangad or attending proceedings there. She seeks transfer to Ettumanoor to enable fair hearing and convenient access, while leaving open the possibility of dispensing personal appearance if necessary.

Contentions of Respondents

The first respondent in TR.P(C) No.521/2021 seeks transfer of OP 1183/2020 from Nedumangad to Ettumanoor on grounds of residence in Changanacheri and the lack of a chaperone for a minor child to travel to Nedumangad. The respondents in TR.P(C) No.375/2021 (Gomathi and others) oppose unnecessary disruption and keep focus on the proper adjudicatory venue, while acknowledging the broader preference for transfers that serve convenience and protects women and children. The court frames the issue as balancing jurisdiction with hardship and ultimately relies on the well-established principle that the convenience of the wife and child should drive transfer decisions.

Cited Precedents (5)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Sumitha Sing v. Kumar Sanjay and another	2002 KHC 1889	Positive	Cited as the leading authority recognizing that transfer of matrimonial disputes should be guided by the convenience of women and children.
Mona Aresh Goel v. Aresh Satya Goel	2000 KHC 1835	Positive	Cited to support the principle of convenience and family-welfare in transfer decisions.
Vaishali Shridhar Jagtap v. Shridhar Vishwanath Jagtap	2016 KHC 6489	Positive	Referencing judicial stance on transfer based on convenience and hardship.
Santhini v. Vijaya Venkatesh	2017 (5) KHC 48	Positive	Used to bolster the convenience-based transfer framework for women and children.
N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha	2022 (5) KHC 185	Positive	Further authority sustaining preference for transfer guided by family welfare considerations.

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) Nos. 375 & 521 of 2021 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. 375&521 OF 2021 1 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS** **WEDNESDAY, THE 11[TH] DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 21ST POUSHA, 1944 TR.P(C) NO. 521 OF 2021** ## **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP 1183/2020 OF FAMILY COURT,** ## **NEDUMANGAD** ## **PETITIONER/S:** RINIMOL P.DAS, AGED 47 YEARS D/O DEVADAS, PUTHANPURAYIL, MADAPPALLY VILLAGE, CHANANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM-686536. BY ADV A.K.HARIDAS ## **RESPONDENT/S:** 1 GOMATHI, W/O BALACHANDRAN, PARAMUKALI SAUPARNIKA, KALLARA VILLAGE,NEDUMANGADU TALUK, KALLARA.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695608. 2 PRITICA,AGED 18 D/O SUNIL KUMAR, PUTHANPURAYIL, MADAPPALLY VILLAGE, PERUMPANCHY P.O., CHAGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM 686536 3 LEENA , AGED 48 (FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN), PARAMUKALIL SOUPARNIKAYIL, KALLARA P.O., KALLARA VILLLAGE, THIRUVANATHAPURAM 695608 4 MEGHA , AGED 18 D/O SUNIL KUMAR, PARAMUKALIL SOUPARNIKAYIL, KALLARA P.O., KALLARA VILLLAGE, THIRUVANATHAPURAM 695608 THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.01.2023, ALONG WITH Tr.P(C).375/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: TR.P(C) NOs. 375&521 OF 2021 2 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS** **WEDNESDAY, THE 11[TH] DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 21ST POUSHA, 1944 TR.P(C) NO. 375 OF 2021** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENTOP 430/2020 OF FAMILY COURT,** ## **KOTTAYAM** ## **PETITIONER/S:** GOMATHI AGED 77 YEARS W/O. BALACHANNDRAN, RESIDING AT PARAMUKALI SAUPARNIKA, KALLARA VILLAGE, NEDUMANAGADU TALUK, KALLARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 608 BY ADVS. R.N.SANDEEP(K/000940/2013)-25021 KEERTHI VIJAYAN ## **RESPONDENT/S:** 1 RINIMOL P DAS AGED 47 YEARS D/O. DEVADAS, RESIDING AT PUTHANPURAYIL , MAADAPALLY VILLAGE, CHANGANASSERY TALUK, KOTTAYAM686 536 2 PRITICA, AGED 18 YEARS D/O. LATE SUNILKUMARM RESIDING AT PUTHANPURAYIL , MAADAPALLY VILLAGE, CHANGANASSERY TALUK, KOTTAYAM686 536 3 LEENA AGED 48 YEARS LOWER, LATE SUNILKUMAR, RESIDING AT PARAMUKALI SAUPARNIKA, KALLA VILLAGE, NEDUMANGADU TALUK, KALLARA P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 608 4 MEKHA TR.P(C) NOs. 375&521 OF 2021 3 AGED 18 YEARS D/O. LATE SUNILKUMAR, RESIDING AT PARAMUKALI SAUPARNIKA, KALLARA VILLAGE, NEDUMANGADU TALUK, KALLARA P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 608 BY ADV A.K.HARIDAS THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.01.2023, ALONG WITH Tr.P(C).521/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: TR.P(C) NOs. 375&521 OF 2021 4 ## **COMMON ORDER** As the transfer petitions are in relation to the disputes relating to the properties of late Sunilkumar, they have been disposed of by this common order. The parties and the pleadings are, for the sake of convenience, referred to as per the litigate status in Tr.P(C) No.375/2021, which is treated as the leading case. 2. The petitioner's case in Tr.P(C) No.375/2021 is that she is the mother of Sunilkumar. The respondents 1 and 2 are the wife and daughter of Sunilkumar. The respondents 3 and 4 are allegedly the second wife and daughter of Sunilkumar. The respondents 1 and 2 have filed OP No.430/2020 (Annexure A1) before the Family Court, Ettumanoor, against the petitioner and the respondents 2 and 3, to declare the respondents 1 and 2 as the legal heirs of Sunilkumar. The petitioner has filed OP No.1183/2020 (Annexure A2) before the Family Court, Nedumangad, against the respondents for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction. The petitioner is TR.P(C) NOs. 375&521 OF 2021 5 residing in Kallara. She is aged 77 years. It would be difficult for her to travel all the way to Ettumanoor to contest Annexure A1. Hence, the transfer petition. 3. The 1[st] respondent has filed Tr.P(C) No.521/2021, to transfer Annexure A2 from the Family Court, Nedumangad to the Family Court, Ettumanoor. She has contended that she and her minor daughter are residing in Changanacheri. There is no person to chaperone them from Changanacheri to Nedumangad to contest Annexure P2. Hence, the transfer petition. 4. Heard; Sri.A.K.Haridas, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Tr.P(C) No.521/2021 – respondents 1 and 2 in TR.P(C) No.375/2021 and Sri.R.N.Sandeep, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Tr.P(C) No.375/2021 -the respondent in Tr.P(C) No.521/2021. 5. The question is which transfer petition is to be allowed ? 6. On a consideration of the rival pleadings and 6 TR.P(C) NOs. 375&521 OF 2021 materials on record in the two transfer petitions, it is evident that the plaint schedule property is situated within the jurisdiction of the Family Court, Ettumanoor. The 1[st] respondent and her daughter, are living in Changanacheri, and the petitioner and the respondents 3 and 4 are residing in Trivandrum. 7. The law with respect to transfer of proceedings, particularly matrimonial disputes, is no longer resintegra, in view of the categoric declaration of law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Sumitha Sing V. Kumar Sanjay and another** [2002 KHC 1889], **Mona Aresh Goel V. Aresh Satya Goel** [2000 KHC 1835], **Vaishali Shridhar Jagtap V. Shridhar Vishwanath Jagtap** [2016 KHC 6489], **Santhini V. Vijaya Venkatesh** [2017 (5) KHC 48] and **N.C.V. Aishwarya vs. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha** [2022 (5) KHC 185]. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that it is the convenience of the woman and children that has to be looked into, while ordering the transfer of a case from one Court to another. TR.P(C) NOs. 375&521 OF 2021 7 8. Going by the law laid down in the afore-cited decisions and taking note of the fact that all the parties are ladies, I am of the definite view that it is the comparative hardship of the wife and child of Sunilkumar that has to be given due preference and weightage because of their younger age; and the fact that the properties are situated within the jurisdiction of the Family Court, Ettumanoor. Nonetheless, the petitioner and respondents 3 and 4 would be at liberty to move the Family Court, Ettumanoor and seek for the dispensation of their personal appearance, which would do complete justice to both sides. In the result, I dispose of the transfer petitions as follows: - (i) Tr.P(C) No.375/2021 is dismissed. - (ii) Tr.P(C) No.521/2021 is allowed by ordering withdrawal and transfer of OP No.1183/2020 from the Family Court, Nedumangad to the Family Court, Ettumanoor. TR.P(C) NOs. 375&521 OF 2021 8 - (iii) The parties would be at liberty to move the Family Court, Ettumanoor and seek for consolidation and joint trial of all the cases between them. - (iv) The Registry shall forward a copy of this common order to the Family Court, Nedumangad with instructions to forthwith transmit the records in Annexure-A2 to the Family Court, Ettumanoor. - (v) The Family Court, Ettumanoor shall, immediately on receipt of the records in Annexure-A2, post the case along with Annexure A1. - (vi) The parties would be at liberty to move the Family Court, Ettumanoor and seek for the dispensation of their personal appearance. Sd/- ## **C.S.DIAS, JUDGE** rkc/11.01.23 TR.P(C) NOs. 375&521 OF 2021 9 ## **APPENDIX OF TR.P(C) 375/2021** PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION IN OP NO.430/2020 FILED BY THE 1ST AND 2ND RESPONDENTS BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, ETTUMANOOR Annexure A2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION IN OP 1183/2020 FILED BY THE 1ST AND 2ND RESPONDENTS BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, NEDUMANGADU TR.P(C) NOs. 375&521 OF 2021 10 ## **APPENDIX OF TR.P(C) 521/2021** PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure P-1 THE TRUE COPY OF O.P.430/2020 PENDING BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, EATTUMANOOR. Annexure P-2 THGE TRUE COPY OF O.P.NO.1183/2020 PENDING BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, NEDUMANGADU,.