Tr.P.(C).Nos.22 & 23 of 2024

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C. Jayachandran
Judgment Date: 2024-03-13
Court Decision / Holding: Transfer Petitions will stand dismissed.
Final Disposition: Dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Vidya P Pillai
Prasan nakumaran Pilllai

Respondents

Jerin Raj
Veena P Pillai

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Nobel Raju
• C.R. Jayakumar
• Aleena Jose

Counsels for Respondents

• Vinod Bhat S
• Anagha Lakshmy Raman
• V. Namitha
• Greeshma Chandrika.R

Case Synopsis & Summary

This joint order of the Kerala High Court concerns two transfer petitions filed under Tr.P.(C) Nos. 22 and 23 of 2024 by the wife Vidya P Pillai and her co-respondents, seeking transfer of two original matrimonial petitions (O.P. 956/2021 and O.P. 1254/2021) from the Family Court, Irinjalakuda, to the Family Court at Pathanamthitta. The petitions are grounded on the convenience of the petitioner, with counsel relying on the Supreme Court decision Sumita Singh v. Kumar Sanjay & another (AIR 2002 SC 396) to contend that a wife's convenience may be a relevant factor in transfer motions in matrimonial matters. The petitioners explain that the wife is employed as a teacher in Salalah, Oman, and can be present in Kerala only for about fifteen days each in June–July and December; they argue that this factor should be considered to facilitate timely and fair disposal. The respondents’ counsel appeared as well. The court recalls two earlier transfer petitions (Annexure-A2 in TRPC 236/2022 and 229/2022) that were dismissed, noting that the convenience of the mother/Power of Attorney holder cannot control natural jurisdiction. After hearing counsel, the court finds no change of circumstances from the earlier order and holds that there is no genuine and valid ground to permit the transfers. Consequently, the petitions are dismissed, and the transfers are not ordered to Pathanamthitta.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Wife’s convenience principle in transfer of matrimonial matters
Original Petitions filed before courts having natural jurisdiction cannot be lightly interfered with and directed to be transferred, except for genuine and valid grounds

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicants submit two transfer petitions (O.P.956/2021 and O.P.1254/2021) seeking transfer of proceedings from Irinjalakuda to Pathanamthitta on convenience grounds. They rely on the Supreme Court’s Sumita Singh v. Kumar Sanjay & another (AIR 2002 SC 396) to contend that the wife’s convenience must be considered in transfer decisions in matrimonial matters. The wife contends she is currently employed as a teacher in Salalah, Oman, and can only be in Kerala for two blocks of about 15 days each year, which allegedly affects access to justice and timely disposal. They argue that the prior dismissal of earlier transfer petitions due to representation issues has been overcome, and that a direct filing by the wife constitutes a valid ground for transfer. They request transfer to Pathanamthitta on the basis of convenience and judicial economy.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents’ counsel participated and opposed the requested transfers. They emphasize there is no material change in circumstances from the earlier order and contend that convenience of the wife cannot override the natural jurisdiction of the court. They argue that transferring to another court would disrupt continuity and that genuine grounds for transfer are lacking, as the parties remain within the same matrimonial setup and jurisdiction. The court’s common reasoning concludes that no valid grounds exist to permit transfer.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Sumita Singh v. Kumar Sanjay & another	AIR (2002) SC 396	Positive	Cited to support that the wife’s convenience may be a relevant consideration in transfer of matrimonial matters and to justify granting weight to the petitioner’s arguments on convenience.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 13[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 23RD PHALGUNA, 1945** **TR.P(C) NO. 22 OF 2024** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN OP NO.956 OF 2021 OF FAMILY COURT, IRINJALAKUDA** ## **PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS:** **1 VIDYA P PILLAI AGED 33 YEARS** **D/O. PRASANNAKUMARAN PILLAI, RESIDING AT ROHINI NIVAS, AYATHIL, ELAVANTHITTA MEZHUVELI PO, PATHANAMTHITTA, KERALA, PIN - 689507** **2 PRASANNAKUMARAN PILLAI AGED 64 YEARS APPUPUNNEL VEETTIL, EDANADU PO, CHENGANNOOR, ALAPUZHA, RESIDING AT ROHINI NIVAS, AYATHIL, ELAVANTHITTA MEZHUVELI PO, PATHANAMTHITTA, KERALA, PIN - 689507** **BY ADVS. NOBEL RAJU C.R.JAYAKUMAR ALEENA JOSE** ## **RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:** **JERIN RAJ AGED 36 YEARS** **S/O. JAYARAJAN, KALACHATTIL, KONATHUKUNNU PO, PAINGODU, THEKKUMKARA, MUKUNDAPURAM, THRISSUR 680123 REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER JAYARAJAN, AGED 64YRS, S/O. SHANKARAN NAIR KALACHATTIL, KONATHUKUNNU PO, PAINGODU, THEKKUMKARA, MUKUNDAPURAM, THRISSUR, PIN - 680123 BY ADVS. Vinod Bhat S ANAGHA LAKSHMY RAMAN(K/000767/2015) V.NAMITHA(K/1090/2011) GREESHMA CHANDRIKA.R(K/807/2020)** ## **THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION** **ON 13.03.2024, ALONG WITH Tr.P(C).23/2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **Tr.P.(C).NOs.22 & 23 of 2024** ..2.. ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 13[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 23RD PHALGUNA, 1945 TR.P(C) NO. 23 OF 2024** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN OP NO.1254 OF 2021 OF FAMILY COURT, IRINJALAKUDA** ## **PETITIONER/1ST RESPONDENT:** **VIDYA P PILLAI AGED 33 YEARS D/O. PRASANNAKUMARAN PILLAI, RESIDING AT ROHINI NIVAS, AYATHIL, ELAVANTHITTA MEZHUVELI PO, PATHANAMTHITTA, KERALA, PIN - 689507** **BY ADVS. NOBEL RAJU C.R.JAYAKUMAR ALEENA JOSE** ## **RESPONDENT/PETITIONER/2ND RESPONDENT:** **1 JERIN RAJ AGED 34 YEARS S/O. JAYARAJAN, KALACHATTIL, KONATHUKUNNU PO, PAINGODU, THEKKUMKARA, MUKUNDAPURAM, TRISSUR 680123 REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER JAYARAJAN, AGED 64YRS, S/O. SHANKARAN NAIR KALACHATTIL, KONATHUKUNNU PO, PAINGODU, THEKKUMKARA, MUKUNDAPURAM, TRISSUR, PIN - 680123 2 VEENA P PILLAI D/O. PRASANNAKUMARAN PILLAI, RESIDING AT ROHINI NIVAS, AYATHIL, ELAVANTHITTA MEZHUVELI PO, PATHANAMTHITTA, KERALA, PIN - 689507 BY ADVS. Vinod Bhat S ANAGHA LAKSHMY RAMAN(K/000767/2015) V.NAMITHA(K/1090/2011) GREESHMA CHANDRIKA.R(K/807/2020)** **THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.03.2024, ALONG WITH Tr.P(C).22/2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **Tr.P.(C).NOs.22 & 23 of 2024** **==> picture [37 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** ## **COMMON ORDER** ## _**Dated this the 13[th] day of March, 2024**_ **These are applications preferred by the wife seeking transfer of O.P.No.1254/2021 and O.P.No.956/2021, both, pending before the Family Court, Irinjalakuda to the Family Court,** **Pathanamthitta, essentially on the ground of convenience of the petitioner/wife. The petitioner would specifically rely on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sumita Singh v. Kumar Sanjay & another [AIR (2002) SC 396], to propound that wife's convenience must be looked into, while considering a transfer motion made by the petitioner/wife in matrimonial matters.** **2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondents.** **Tr.P.(C).NOs.22 & 23 of 2024** **==> picture [37 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** **3. This Court notice that, two transfer petitions preferred seeking transfer of the self-same original petitions, vide Tr.P.(C)Nos.229/2022 & 236/2022, were dismissed by this Court vide Annexure-A2 common order. The reason for dismissal was that, the said transfer petitions were preferred by the petitioner, represented through her Power of Attorney holder/mother and this Court held that, the convenience of the mother/Power of Attorney holder cannot be taken stock of, to transfer cases, which are filed before the courts having natural jurisdiction. Thereafter, the present transfer petitions have been filed by the wife directly, seeking transfer of the said two original petitions to the Family court, Pathananthitta. In the meanwhile, two original petitions were filed by the petitioner/wife before the Family Court, Pathanamthitta after dismissal of the earlier transfer petitions, vide Annexure-A2. The first petition O.P.(HMA)No.30/2023 is one** **Tr.P.(C).NOs.22 & 23 of 2024** **==> picture [37 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** **seeking divorce and the second, O.P.No.29/2023 is one seeking patrimony. Now, the contention of the petitioner is that, the said two cases are pending before the Family Court, Pathanamthitta, which is an additional reason for allowing the transfer sought for.** **4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, this Court finds that the transfers sought for cannot be allowed. There is no change of circumstances from Annexure-A2 common order, except that the present petitions are preferred by the wife directly. It remains an undisputed fact that, the petitioner/wife is still working as a teacher in Salalah, Oman, and that she is available in Kerala twice in an year, to be more precisely 15 days during June-July and another 15 days during December. If that be the position, the convenience of the petitioner/wife in seeking transfer from Irinjalakuda to Pathanamthitta is** **Tr.P.(C).NOs.22 & 23 of 2024** **==> picture [37 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** **highly far-fetched, unrealistic and not liable to be recognized. Learned counsel would submit that the respondent is also working in U.A.E., which, however, is not a fact having any relevance in the context of the transfers sought for. If the convenience of the petitioner/wife is discounted as narrated above, there exists no ground for allowing the transfers sought for. This Court is of the opinion that, Original Petitions filed before courts having natural jurisdiction cannot be lightly interfered with and directed to be transferred, except for genuine and valid grounds, which is lacking in the instant facts.** **Accordingly, the Transfer Petitions will stand dismissed.** Sd/- **C. JAYACHANDRAN** **JUDGE** **TR** **Tr.P.(C).NOs.22 & 23 of 2024** ..7.. ## **APPENDIX OF TR.P(C) 23/2024** |**PETITIONER ANNEXURES**|**PETITIONER ANNEXURES**| |---|---| |**Annexure A1**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION IN O.P. NO.**| ||**1254/2021 FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT,**| ||**PENDING BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT,**| ||**IRINJALAKUDA DATED 05.11.2021**| |**Annexure A2**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER IN TRPC**| ||**236/2022 BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT DATED**| ||**27.09.2022**| **Tr.P.(C).NOs.22 & 23 of 2024** ..8.. ## **APPENDIX OF TR.P(C) 22/2024** |**PETITIONER ANNEXURES**|**PETITIONER ANNEXURES**| |---|---| |**Annexure A1**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION IN O.P. NO.**| ||**956/2021 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT,**| ||**PENDING BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT,**| ||**IRINJALAKUDA DATED 14.09.2021**| |**Annexure A2**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER IN TRPC**| ||**229/2022 DATED 27.09.2022 BY THIS**| ||**HONOURABLE COURT**|