High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2023-03-23Transfer petitions dismissed.

Tr.P(C) Nos. 550 & 700 of 2022 — Madhu Sankarankutty and others v. Ravi and Vasumathy

Case / Petition Number:TR.P(C) Nos. 550 & 700 of 2022

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C.S. Dias, J.
Judgment Date: 2023-03-23
Court Decision / Holding: The transfer petitions are dismissed.
Final Disposition: Transfer petitions dismissed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Madhu Sankarankutty
Saraswathy
Mini Sankarankutty

Respondents

Ravi
Vasumathy

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• V. Philip Mathews

Counsels for Respondents

• K. Siju
• T. S. Sreekutty
• Anjana Kannath

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a common order of the Kerala High Court, Ernakulam, disposing of two transfer petitions (Tr.P(C) Nos. 550/2022 and 700/2022) arising from matrimonial disputes linked to the marriage of Madhu Sankarankutty with his late wife Bindu. The petitions seek transfer of proceedings from the Family Court, Chavara, to the Family Court, Mavelikkara, invoking Section 24 CPC on the ground of convenience and to avoid hardship for the family. The petitioners (the husband and close relatives) assert they are permanent residents of Chettikulangara, Alappuzha, and travelling to Chavara is burdensome, especially since they had earlier engaged in separate O.P.s in Mavelikkara for divorce and related issues. The respondents (Ravi and Vasumathy) oppose transfer, arguing that the custody matters involve children who currently reside and study within the Chavara jurisdiction, making transfer disruptive and burdensome for the children. The court notes, relying on prior Supreme Court and Kerala High Court authorities, that the welfare of the woman and children governs transfer decisions in matrimonial disputes. The judge ultimately holds that the children’s convenience, given their residence and studies in Chavara, outweighs the petitioners’ travel inconveniences. Exercising no discretionary transfer power under Section 24 CPC, the petitions are dismissed, keeping the matter in Chavara. The order is by Justice C. S. Dias, dated 23 March 2023.

Provisions of Law Cited

Code of Civil Procedure, Section 24

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Res integra (the law on transfer of matrimonial proceedings is no longer res integra)
Doctrine: convenience of the woman and children is decisive in transfer of matrimonial proceedings (as articulated through Sumitha Sing v. Kumar Sanjay and others and subsequent authorities)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicants contended that they, being permanent residents of Chettikulangara, Alappuzha, face undue hardship traveling to the Family Court at Chavara. They argued that the children, now aged 19 and 13, reside with the respondents in Karunagappally and study within the Chavara jurisdiction; transferring to Mavelikkara would ease personal inconvenience for the family, especially given the petition for custody proceedings (OP(G&W) 542/2021) and related matters. They relied on established jurisprudence emphasizing welfare and convenience in transfer decisions and urged the court to exercise its discretion under Section 24 CPC to permit transfer for the sake of family welfare.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents urged that the custody petitions involve the children who are presently living and studying in the Chavara jurisdiction. They argued that a transfer to Mavelikkara would force the children to travel away from their environment, causing significant hardship. They noted the older child is major but the younger child remains a student and under the care of the respondents. Given the children's ties to the Chavara area, the respondents contended that keeping proceedings there would be more convenient and consistent with the children’s welfare and education.

Cited Precedents (5)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Sumitha Sing v. Kumar Sanjay and another	2002 KHC 1889	Positive	Cited to support the proposition that the convenience of the woman and children should govern transfer decisions in matrimonial disputes.
Mona Aresh Goel v. Aresh Satya Goel	2000 KHC 1835	Positive	Cited as authority reinforcing welfare-based transfer considerations.
Vaishali Shridhar Jagtap v. Shridhar Vishwanath Jagtap	2016 KHC 6489	Positive	Cited for welfare-oriented transfer principles in matrimonial matters.
Santhini v. Vijaya Venkatesh	2017 (5) KHC 48	Positive	Cited to underscore the welfare-centric approach to transfer decisions.
Aiswarya N.C.V. v. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha	2022 (5) KHC 185(SC)	Positive	SC decision cited to reinforce that welfare considerations govern transfer orders.

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. 550 & 700 of 2022 — Madhu Sankarankutty and others v. Ravi and Vasumathy 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 C.S.DIAS ``` ``` THURSDAY, THE 23[RD] DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 2ND CHAITHRA, 1945 ``` ``` TR.P(C) NO. 700 OF 2022 ``` ``` OP 1/2022 OF FAMILY COURT, CHAVARA ``` ## **`PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS:`** ``` 1MADHU SANKARANKUTTY AGED 51 YEARS S/O.SANKARANKUTTY,PLAMKEEZHIL VEEDU, CHETTIKULANGARA, ALAPPUZHA-690106 ( NOW RESIDING AT : KUTTIYIL HOUSE,KAITHA SOUTH,CHETTIKULANGARA P.O, KANNAMANGALAM,ALAPPUZHA-690106. ``` ``` 2SARASWATHY AGED 72 YEARS W/O SANKARANKUTTY , KUTTIYIL VEEDU , KAITHA SOUTH ,CHETTIKULANGARA MAVELIKKARA, PIN – 690106 ``` ``` 3MINI SANKARANKUTTY AGED 52 YEARS D/O SARASWATHY (TEACHER , S.N.V.M.H.S. VANNAPURAM ) , KUTTIYIL VEEDU , KAITHA SOUTH ,CHETTIKULANGARA MAVELIKKARA, PIN – 690106 ``` ``` BY ADV V.PHILIP MATHEWS ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:`** ``` RAVI AGED 70 YEARS S/O PRABHAKARAN , PULLAMPALLI VEEDU , KOTTAMPALLY , OACHIRA P.O , KARUNAGAPPALLY , KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 690526 BY ADVS. K.SIJU T.S.SREEKUTTY ANJANA KANNATH ``` ``` THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.03.2023, ALONG WITH Tr.P(C).550/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 2 Tr.P (C) Nos. 550 & 700 of 2022 ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS ``` ``` THURSDAY, THE 23[RD] DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 2ND CHAITHRA, 1945 TR.P(C) NO. 550 OF 2022 ``` ## **`OP(G&W) No. 542/2021 OF FAMILY COURT, CHAVARA`** ## **`PETITIONER/PETITIONER:`** ``` MADHU SANKARANKUTTY AGED 52 YEARS S/O.SANKARANKUTTY, PLAMKEEZHIL, CHETTIKULANGARA, ALAPPUZHA-690106 (NOW RESIDING AT : KUTTIYIL HOUSE, KAITHA SOUTH, CHETTIKULANGARA P.O, KANNAMANGALAM, ALAPPUZHA-690106) ``` ``` BY ADV V.PHILIP MATHEWS ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT:`** ``` 1RAVI AGED 71 YEARS PULLAMPALLIL HOUSE, KOTTAMPALLY, OACHIRA P.O, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 690526 2VASUMATHY AGED 66 YEARS W/O. RAVI, PULLAMPALLIL HOUSE, KOTTAMPALLY, OACHIRA P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 690526 BY ADVS. K.SIJU ANJANA KANNATH ``` ``` THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.03.2023, ALONG WITH Tr.P(C).700/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 3 Tr.P (C) Nos. 550 & 700 of 2022 ## **COMMON ORDER** As the transfer petitions pertain to the dispute arising out of and in connection with the marriage between Madhu Sankarankutty (husband) and his late wife Bindu (wife), and their relatives, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Tr.P.(C) No.700/2022 is filed by the husband, his mother and sister against the father of the deceased to transfer O.P.No.1/2022 from the Family Court, Chavara to the Family Court, Mavelikkara. Tr.P.(C) No.550/2022 is filed by the husband against the parents of the deceased to transfer O.P. (G&W) No.542/2021 from the Family Court, Chavara to the Family Court, Mavelikkara. For the sake of convenience, the parties and the pleadings are referred to as per the status in Tr.P.(C)No.700/2022, which is treated as the leading case. 4 Tr.P (C) Nos. 550 & 700 of 2022 3. The common case of the petitioner and his relatives in the transfer petitions is that, the first petitioner married Bindu, the daughter of the respondent on 6.2.2002. Two children named Rishikesh M. Sankar and Rithika Madhu were born in the wedlock. The marital relationship got strained. Then, the first petitioner filed O.P. No.806/2021, before the Family Court, Mavelikkara, against his wife, for a decree of divorce. The first petitioner also filed an original petition against his wife for recovery of money and gold ornaments. During the pendency of the cases, Bindu died on 7.8.2021. The first petitioner permitted the children to live with the respondent. But, after the customary rituals, the respondent prevented the first petitioner from meeting his children. In the above circumstances, the first petitioner filed O.P. (G&W) No.542/2021 before the Family Court, Chavara, against the respondent and his wife, for the custody of the 5 Tr.P (C) Nos. 550 & 700 of 2022 children. As a counter blast, the respondent filed O.P.No.1/2022 before the Family Court, Chavara, against the first petitioner, his mother and sister, for a decree for recovery of money and gold ornaments. The petitioners are permanent residents of Chettikulangara, Alappuzha. It would be difficult for them to travel all the way from Alappuzha to Family Court, Chavara to contest O.P(G&W) No.542/2021 and O.P. No.1/2022. Hence, the transfer petition. 4. The respondents in Tr.P.(C)No.550/2022, the parents of the deceased, have filed a counter affidavit denying the assertions in the transfer petitions. It is their case that the children are residing and pursuing their studies within the jurisdiction of the Family Court, Chavara. As O.P(G&W)No.542/2021 pertains to the custody of the children, necessarily the children will have to be produced before the Family Court. If the cases are transferred, necessarily the children would have to travel 6 Tr.P (C) Nos. 550 & 700 of 2022 to Mavelikkara, which would cause severe hardship and inconvenience to the children. Moreover, the older child is a major. He is not willing to meet the first petitioner and his relatives. The younger child has also no acquaintance with the petitioners. Hence, the transfer petitions may be dismissed. 5. Heard; Sri.V.Philip Mathew, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Smt. Anjana Kannath, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 6. The question is whether transfer petitions are to be allowed. 7. On an appreciation of the pleadings and materials on record, it is evident that O.P) (G&W) No. 542/2021, which is the subject matter in Tr.P.(C)No.550/2022 is filed by the first petitioner for the custody of the children, who are now aged 19 and 13 years. 8. Indisputably, the children are residing along with the respondents in Karunagappally, Kollam District and 7 Tr.P (C) Nos. 550 & 700 of 2022 they are pursuing the studies in the schools within the jurisdiction of the Family Court, Chavara. 9. 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 **Aiswarya N.C.V. v. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha** [2022 (5) KHC 185(SC)]. 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. 10. Taking into account the fact that the children are residing within the jurisdiction of the Family Court, Chavara, I am of the view that it is their convenience 8 Tr.P (C) Nos. 550 & 700 of 2022 that outweighs the inconvenience of the petitioners. Thus, I am not inclined to exercise the discretionary powers of this Court under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure in favour of the petitioners. Resultantly, the transfer petitions are dismissed. Sd/- **C.S.DIAS, JUDGE** rmm/23/3/2023 9 Tr.P (C) Nos. 550 & 700 of 2022 ## **`APPENDIX OF TR.P(C) 550/2022`** - `PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure 1 COPY OF O.P. (G&W) NO.542/2021 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, CHAVARA` - `Annexure 2 COPY OF I.A. NO.1/2021 FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN ANNEXURE 1 O.P.` - `Annexure 3 COPY OF ORDER DATED 4.12.2021 IN O.P. (F.C.) NO.593/2021` - `Annexure 4 COPY OF ORDER DATED 22.12.2021 ISSUED BY THE FAMILY COURT IN I.A.NO.1/2021 IN O.P. (G&W) NO.542/2021` - `Annexure 5 COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 25.3.2022 IN O.P. (F.C.) NO.593/2021` - `Annexure 6 COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 6.4.2022 IN O.P. (F.C.) NO.54/2022` - `Annexure 7 COPY OF ORDER DATED 13.5.2022 IN I.A.NO.3 OF 2022 IN O.P.(F.C.) NO.54 OF 2022` - `Annexure 8 COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 15.6.2022 IN O.P. (F.C) NO.314/2022` - `RESPONDENTS’ ANNEXURES ANNEXURE R1(a) THE COPY OF OBJECTION FILED BY ME AND THE 2ND RESPONDENT HEREIN IN IA NO.1/2021 IN OP (G&W) NO.542/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE FAMILY COURT, CHAVARA` - `ANNEXURE R1(b) THE COPY OF INTERIM ORDER DATED 3.12.2021 PASSED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT IN W.P.© NO.27512/2021 DATED 3.12.2021` - `ANNEXURE R1(c) THE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT DATED 29.3.2022 FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN OP(FC) NO.54/2022` 10 Tr.P (C) Nos. 550 & 700 of 2022 ``` ANNEXURE R1 (d)THE COPY OF RECEIPT DATED 12.9.2022 ISSUED BY THE SHO, CHAVARA POLICE STATION REGARDING RECEIPT OF COMPLAINT FROM THE SON OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT ``` ``` ANNEXURE R1(e)THE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL PETITION NO.1/2022 PENDING BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, CHAVARA ``` 11 Tr.P (C) Nos. 550 & 700 of 2022 ## **`APPENDIX OF TR.P(C) 700/2022`** ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES ``` ``` Annexure1COPY OF OP NO.1/2020 FILED BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT CHAVARA Annexure2COPY OF ATTACHMENT PETITION FILED BY RESPONDENT ```