High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2021-07-01The court disposed of the petitions by dismissi...

Tr.P.(C) Nos. 713 & 760 of 2019 (JEEVAN S. vs NEEHARARAJAN R. and NEEHARA RAJAN vs JEEVAN S.)

Case / Petition Number:TR.P.(C) Nos. 713 & 760 of 2019

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: V.G. Arun
Judgment Date: 2021-07-01
Court Decision / Holding: In the result, Tr.P.(C) 713/2019 is dismissed and Tr.P.(C) 760/2019 is allowed. The Family Court, Attingal shall forthwith transfer O.P.(HMA) 727/2018 to the Family Court, Pathanamthitta. The parties shall appear before the Family Court, Pathanamthitta on 24.08.2021. The transferee court shall not insist on the personal presence of the parties, unless absolutely necessary.
Final Disposition: The court disposed of the petitions by dismissing 713/2019 and allowing 760/2019, with directions to transfer O.P.(HMA) 727/2018 from Attingal to Pathanamthitta. The transferee court is directed to proceed with hearings; personal appearances should be avoided unless absolutely necessary, and appearance date fixed as 24.08.2021.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

JEEVAN S.
V. SASIDHARAN
SONIYA
NEEHARA RAJAN

Respondents

NEEHARARAJAN R.
JEEVAN S.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• M.R. SASITH
• MANU RAMACHANDRAN
• M.KIRANLAL
• T.S.SARATH
• R.RAJESH (VARKALA)
• AJAY JAYACHANDRAN
• M.R.SASITH

Counsels for Respondents

• MANU RAMACHANDRAN
• M.KIRANLAL
• T.S.SARATH
• R.RAJESH (VARKALA)
• AJAY JAYACHANDRAN
• M.R.SASITH

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a High Court of Kerala transfer petition case involving matrimonial disputes, heard by a Single Judge, Justice V. G. Arun. The petitions arise from conflicting family court proceedings: in Tr.P.(C) No.713/2019 the wife seeks transfer of her husband’s original petition to the Family Court at Pathanamthitta on the ground of convenience and proximity to her residence in Mannappuzha, Perunad, within Pathanamthitta district; in Tr.P.(C) No.760/2019 the husband seeks transfer of the wife’s original petition to Pathanamthitta or, conversely, challenges the wife's preferred transfer to Attingal. The court relies on Supreme Court authority recognizing that, in transfer petitions stemming from matrimonial disputes, the convenience of the wife should be given preference, citing Sumita Singh v. Kumar Sanjay (2001) 10 SCC 41, Rajani Kishore Pardesh v. Kishore Babulal Pardesh (2005) 1 SCC 237, and Leena Mukherjee v. Rabi Shankar Mukherjee (2002) 10 SCC 480, particularly noting lack of companionship for the wife as a valid transfer-ground. Ultimately, the court disposes Tr.P.(C)713/2019 (dismissed) and Tr.P.(C)760/2019 (allowed), directing the Family Court, Pathanamthitta to transfer O.P.(HMA)727/2018 accordingly and to proceed with hearings with minimal personal appearances unless necessary, on 24.08.2021.”

Provisions of Law Cited

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

In transfer petitions arising from matrimonial disputes, the convenience of the wife should be preferred.
Lack of a companion for the wife to accompany her to the court can be a reasonable ground for transfer.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicants contend that the wife’s residence and proximity to Pathanamthitta Family Court justify transfer. In Tr.P.(C) No.713/2019, the wife argues that Attingal is approximately 98 km away from her residence, she has no companion to accompany her, and she would be burdened by travel if forced to attend a distant court; she relies on Supreme Court precedents emphasizing matrimonial transfer favors to the wife’s convenience and asserts that the husband’s constant overseas presence exacerbates her difficulties. In Tr.P.(C) No.760/2019, the petitioner/ husband asserts that the wife’s stated location and routine activities (e.g., Neyveli, Tamil Nadu) undermine the convenience argument, suggesting that travelling arrangements for multiple parties and parents should be considered and that the wife’s lack of direct presence is not conclusive. The counsels also highlight the respondents’ hardship and the need for expedited, locally accessible adjudication.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents counter that the wife’s claimed residence and travel burden must be weighed against practical considerations, including the distance to Pathanamthitta and Attingal and the ability to secure attendance of witnesses and parties. They emphasize the husband’s overseas work and living arrangements, and complain that not all family members may be able to attend distant proceedings. They rely on challenges to the wife’s residence claims and point to the possible hardship of older parents and the need to ensure timely justice. The respondents contend that the current forum should not be altered without compelling reasons and assert that the petitions are not purely about convenience but also issues of jurisdiction and efficiency.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Sumita Singh v Kumar Sanjay and another	[(2001) 10 SCC 41]	Positive	Cited to support the proposition that convenience of the wife should be preferred in transfer petitions arising from matrimonial disputes.
Rajani Kishore Pardesh v Kishore Babulal Pardesh	[(2005) 1 SCC 237]	Positive	Cited as reinforcing the wife-convenience principle in transfer petitions.
Leena Mukherjee v. Rabi Shankar Mukherjee	[(2002) 10 SCC 480]	Positive	Held that lack of a companion for the wife to accompany to court can justify transfer.

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. 713 & 760 of 2019 (JEEVAN S. vs NEEHARARAJAN R. and NEEHARA RAJAN vs JEEVAN S.) 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 1[ST] DAY OF JULY 2021 / 10TH ASHADHA, 1943 TR.P(C) NO. 713 OF 2019** **OP 150/2018 OF FAMILY COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA** ## **PETITIONER/S:** 1 JEEVAN S., AGED 29 YEARS S/O. V. SASIDHARAN, KAKKATTU HOUSE, MUTHANA, PALAYAMKUNNU P.O, VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2 V. SASIDHARAN, AGED 66 YEARS S/O. VISHWAMBHARAN, KAKKATTU HOUSE, MUTHANA, PALAYAMKUNNU P.O, VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3 SONIYA, AGED 52 YEARS W/O. SASIDHARAN, KAKKATTU HOUSE, MUTHANA, PALAYAMKUNNU P.O, VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV M.R.SASITH ## **RESPONDENT/S:** NEEHARARAJAN R., AGED 25 YEARS D/O. RAJAN K.R, KOTTAKKATTU HOUSE, MANNAPPUZHA, KOONAMKARA, RANI-PERUNAD VILLAGE, RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-675001 BY ADVS. SRI.MANU RAMACHANDRAN SRI.M.KIRANLAL SRI.T.S.SARATH SRI.R.RAJESH (VARKALA) SHRI.AJAY JAYACHANDRAN THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.07.2021 ALONG WITH TRPC 760/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **Tr.P.(C) Nos. 713 & 760 of 2019** 2 **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **THURSDAY, THE 1[ST] DAY OF JULY 2021 / 10TH ASHADHA, 1943 TR.P(C) NO. 760 OF 2019** **OPHMA 727/2019 OF FAMILY COURT, ATTINGAL,** **THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** ## **PETITIONER/S:** NEEHARA RAJAN AGED 25 YEARS D/O.RAJAN.K.R., KOTTAKKATTU HOUSE, MANNAPPUZHA, KOONAMKARA, RANNI-PERUNAD VILLAGE, RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689711. BY ADVS. MANU RAMACHANDRAN SRI.M.KIRANLAL SRI.T.S.SARATH SRI.R.RAJESH (VARKALA) SHRI.AJAY JAYACHANDRAN ## **RESPONDENT/S:** JEEVAN S., AGED 30 YEARS S/O.V.SASIDHARAN, KAKKATTU HOUSE, MUTHANA.P.O., PALAYAMKUNNU, CHEMMARUTHY VILLAGE, VARKALA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695146. BY ADV SRI.M.R.SASITH THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.07.2021, ALONG WITH TRPC 713/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **Tr.P.(C) Nos. 713 & 760 of 2019** 3 ## **ORDER** Dated this the 01[st] day of July **,** 2021 **The spouses are at loggerheads with each other and have resorted to legal proceedings. The wife has filed O.P.No.150 of 2018 before the Family Court, Pathanamthitta for return of gold ornaments, money and movables. In turn, the husband has approached the Family Court, Attingal for divorce by filing O.P.(HMA) No.727 of 2018. In Tr.P.(C) No.760 of 2019, the wife seeks transfer of the original petition filed by the husband to the Family Court at Pathanamthitta and in Tr.P.(C) No.713 of 2018, the husband is seeking transfer of the original petition filed by the wife to the Family Court, Attingal.** **2. Sri.Manu Ramachandran, learned Counsel appearing for the wife submitted that the wife is** **Tr.P.(C) Nos. 713 & 760 of 2019** 4 **residing in her family house at Mannappuzha in Perunad Village, within the jurisdictional limits of the Family Court, Pathanamthitta. It is submitted that the Family Court, Attingal is about 98 Kms from the wife's residence and she has no one to accompany her. It is contended that the husband has filed the original petition as a counterblast, after receiving notice in the original petition filed by the wife. It is pointed out that the husband is working abroad and seldom appears before the Family Courts. The decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court is relied on to contend that in transfer petitions pertaining to family disputes, convenience of the wife should be given preference.** **3. Sri.Sasith Panicker, learned Counsel appearing for the husband refuted the contentions and submitted that the wife is a permanent** **Tr.P.(C) Nos. 713 & 760 of 2019** 5 **resident of Neyveli in Tamil Nadu and is working as a teacher in JPA Vidyala, Neyveli. To buttress this argument, attention is drawn to the Facebook profile of the wife. It is submitted that the parents of the husband, who are suffering from age related ailments, are unnecessarily made respondents in the original petition filed by the wife. The physical condition of the husband's parents makes it extremely difficult for them to travel up to Pathanamthitta for contesting the case.** **4. In reply, Sri.Manu Ramachandran submitted that the wife had studied at Neyveli and had worked only as a trainee at the JPA Vidyala, as evidenced by Annexure R1 certificate. The learned Counsel reiterated that the wife is residing at her family house in Perunad village** **5. Having heard the learned Counsel, I find** **Tr.P.(C) Nos. 713 & 760 of 2019** 6 **more merit in the request for transfer made by the wife. In this regard, it may be pertinent to refer to the decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court in** _**Sumita Singh v Kumar Sanjay and another [(2001) 10 SCC 41, Rajani Kishore Pardesh v Kishore Babulal Pardesh [(2005) 1 SCC 237]**_ **and a plethora of other decisions, in transfer petitions arising from matrimonial cases, convenience of the wife should be preferred over that of the husband. In** _**Leena Mukherjee v. Rabi Shankar Mukherjee [(2002) 10 SCC 480]**_ **, the Apex Court has held lack of a companion for the wife to accompany her to the court, as a reasonable ground for transfer.** **In the result, Tr.P.(C) 713 of 2019 is dismissed and Tr.P.C 760 of 2019 is allowed. The Family Court, Attingal shall forthwith transfer O.P.(HMA) 727 of 2018 to the Family Court, Pathanamthitta. The parties shall appear before** **Tr.P.(C) Nos. 713 & 760 of 2019** **==> picture [7 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** **the Family court, Pathanamthitta on 24.08.2021. The transferee court shall not insist for personal presence of the parties, unless it is absolutely necessary.** ## **Sd/-** **V.G.ARUN JUDGE** Scl/01.07.2021 8 ## **Tr.P.(C) Nos. 713 & 760 of 2019** ## **APPENDIX OF TR.P(C) 713/2019** PETITIONER ANNEXURE ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE O.P. NO. 150/2018 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT AGAINST THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE HON'BLE FAMILY COURT AT PATHANAMTHITTA DATED 19.02.2018. ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE FACEBOOK PROFILE OF THE RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE RADIOLOGY REPORT OF THE 2ND PETITIONER ISSUED FROM AMRITA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE AND RESEARCH CENTRE DATED 05.10.2019. 9 ## **Tr.P.(C) Nos. 713 & 760 of 2019** ## **APPENDIX OF TR.P(C) 760/2019** PETITIONER ANNEXURE ANNEXURE A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE O.P.NO.150/2018 ON THE FILES OF FAMILY COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA. ANNEXURE A2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE O.P. (HMA)NO.727/2018 ON THE FILES OF THE FAMILY COURT, ATTINGAL.