Vidya P Pillai v Jerin Raj

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C. S. Dias
Judgment Date: 2022-09-27
Court Decision / Holding: The transfer petitions fail and are dismissed.
Final Disposition: Transfer petitions dismissed; common order disposed of two Tr.P(C) petitions.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Vidya P Pillai

Respondents

Jerin Raj
Prasan Nakumaran Pillai
Veena P Pillai

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Nobel Raju
• C.R. Jayakumar

Counsels for Respondents

• S. Vinod Bhat
• Anagha Lakshmy Raman
• Greeshma Chandrika.R
• Dinesh Thankappan

Case Synopsis & Summary

This common order of the Kerala High Court (Justice C.S. Dias) disposes of two Transfer of Civil Procedure petitions (Tr.P(C) Nos. 229/2022 and 236/2022) filed by Vidya P Pillai, wife of Jerin Raj, seeking transfer of two Family Court proceedings from Irinjalakuda to Pathanamthitta. The petitions concern OP 956/2021 (declaration of marriage nullity and related relief) and OP 1254/2021 (recovery of marital expenses and compensation). The petitioner, represented by her power of attorney holder (her mother), contends that Irinjalakuda is about 170 km away and the POA holder, aged 58, would face difficulties traveling to contest these proceedings; she wishes to contest from Pathanamthitta where she resides. The respondents — Jerin Raj and the other respondents in each petition (Prasan Nakumaran Pillai in 229/2022 and Veena P Pillai in 236/2022) — oppose the transfer, arguing there is no invariable rule to transfer on inconvenience and that Section 24 of the CPC cannot be invoked merely for convenience of the POA holder. The court relies on Mini Antony v. Savio Aruja and Vidya Mundekkat v. Akhilesh Jayaram to hold that discretionary power under Section 24 cannot be exercised for convenience and that there is no rigid rule mandating transfer. Consequently, the court declines to exercise its discretion and dismisses both petitions, leaving the Irinjalakuda proceedings intact.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Discretion under Section 24 CPC cannot be invoked to suit convenience of power of attorney holder.
There is no invariable rule for transfer based on inconvenience; discretion under Section 24 must be exercised.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner argues for transfer of the two Family Court proceedings from Irinjalakuda to Pathanamthitta on grounds of convenience, as she is represented through a power of attorney holder who resides in Pathanamthitta. The distance to the current court (Irinjalakuda) is around 170 km, and the POA holder, aged 58, would face travel difficulties, complicating her ability to contest the proceedings. She also notes that she is employed abroad and wishes to ensure effective legal contest from a more proximate forum.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contest the transfer, asserting there is no invariable rule that such transfers must occur for inconvenience. They contend that Section 24 CPC is discretionary and cannot be invoked merely to accommodate the convenience of the POA holder. They emphasize that the petitioner’s mother’s role as POA should not automatically dictate a transfer and rely on established precedents to argue that the court should not re-shape proceedings merely for convenience.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Mini Antony v. Savio Aruja	2022(3) KHC 42	Positive	Cited as authority that the discretionary transfer power under Section 24 cannot be invoked to suit the convenience of a power of attorney holder.
Vidya Mundekkat v. Akhilesh Jayaram	2021(6) KHC 506	Positive	Cited for the proposition that there is no invariable rule governing transfer on inconvenience and that Section 24 must be exercised judiciously.

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 ``` ``` TUESDAY, THE 27[TH] DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022 / 5TH ASWINA, 1944 ``` ## `TR.P(C) NO. 229 OF 2022` ``` OP 956/2021 OF FAMILY COURT, IRINJALAKUDA ``` ## `PETITIONER:` ``` VIDYA P PILLAI AGED 31 YEARS D/O. PRASANNAKUMARAN PILLAI, RESIDING AT ROHINI NIVAS, AYATHIL, ELAVANTHITTA MEZHUVELI PO, PATHANAMTHITTA, KERALA 689507 HAVING PERMANENT ADDRESS AT APPUPUNNEL VEETTIL, EDANADU PO, CHENGANNOOR, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SREEKUMARY P.PILLAI AGED 57YRS, W/O. PRASANNAKUMARAN PILLAI, ROHINI NIVAS, AYATHIL, ELAVANTHITTA MEZHUVELI PO, PATHANAMTHITTA, KERALA, PIN – 689507 ``` ``` BY ADV NOBEL RAJU ``` ## `RESPONDENTS:` ``` 1JERIN RAJ AGED 34 YEARS S/O. JAYARAJAN, KALACHATTIL, KONATHUKUNNU PO, PAINGODU, THEKKUMKARA, MUKUNDAPURAM, TRISSUR 680123 REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER JAYARAJAN, AGED 64 YRS, S/O. SHANKARAN NAIR KALACHATTIL, KONATHUKUNNU PO, PAINGODU, THEKKUMKARA, MUKUNDAPURAM, TRISSUR 680123 , PIN - 680123 2PRASANNAKUMARAN PILLAI AGED 64 YEARS APPUPUNNEL VEETTIL, EDANADU PO, CHENGANNOOR, ALAPUZHA, RESIDING AT ROHINI NIVAS, AYATHIL, ELAVANTHITTA MEZHUVELI PO, PATHANAMTHITTA, KERALA 689507, PIN - 689507 ``` ``` BY ADVS.S.VINOD BHAT ANAGHA LAKSHMY RAMAN GREESHMA CHANDRIKA.R DINESH THANKAPPAN ``` ``` THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.09.2022, ALONG WITH Tr.P(C).236/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` Tr.P.(C)Nos.229 & 236/2022 ``` ``` -:2:- ``` ## `IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM` ## `PRESENT` ## `THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS` ``` TUESDAY, THE 27[TH] DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022 / 5TH ASWINA, 1944 ``` ## `TR.P(C) NO. 236 OF 2022` ``` OP 1254/2021 OF FAMILY COURT, IRINJALAKUDA ``` ## `PETITIONER:` ``` VIDYA P PILLAI AGED 31 YEARS, D/O PRASANNAKUMARAN PILLAI RESIDING AT ROHINI NIVAS, AYATHIL, ELAVANTHITTA MEZHUVELI PO, PATHANAMTHITTA, KERALA 689507 HAVING PERMANENT ADDRESS AT APPUPUNNEL VEETTIL, EDANADU PO, CHENGANNOOR, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SREEKUMARY P.PILLAI AGED 57 YRS, W/O. PRASANNAKUMARAN PILLAI, ROHINI NIVAS, AYATHIL, ELAVANTHITTA MEZHUVELI PO, PATHANAMTHITTA, KERALA, PIN – 689507 ``` ``` BY ADVS.NOBEL RAJU C.R.JAYAKUMAR ``` ## `RESPONDENTS:` ``` 1JERIN 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 2VEENA P PILLAI AGED 36 YEARS D/O. PRASANNAKUMARAN PILLAI, RESIDING AT ROHINI NIVAS, AYATHIL, ELAVANTHITTA MEZHUVELI PO, PATHANAMTHITTA, KERALA., PIN – 689507 ``` ``` BY ADVS.S.VINOD BHAT ANAGHA LAKSHMY RAMAN GREESHMA CHANDRIKA.R DINESH THANKAPPAN ``` ``` THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.09.2022, ALONG WITH Tr.P(C).229/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` Tr.P.(C)Nos.229 & 236/2022 ``` ``` -:3:- ``` Dated this the 27[th] day of September,2022 ## **C O M M O N O R D E R** As the transfer petitions relate to the disputes that have arisen out of the marriage between Vidya G Pillai (wife) and Jerin Raj (husband), they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The transfer petitions are filed by the wife to transfer O.P.Nos.956/2021 and 1254/2021 from the Family Court, Irinjalakuda, to the Family Court, Pathanamthitta. 3. The common case of the petitioner in the transfer petition is that, she is the wife of the first respondent. Their marital relationship is strained. She is employed in Salala. She has executed a power of attorney in favour of her mother. The first respondent has filed O.P.No.956/2021 against the petitioner to declare his marriage with the petitioner as null and void and O.P.No.1254/2021, for a decree for recovery of ``` Tr.P.(C)Nos.229 & 236/2022 ``` ``` -:4:- ``` marital expenses and compensation. The petitioner is a permanent resident of Pathanamthitta. She has authorised her mother, who is 58 years of age, to contest the proceedings. The Family Court, Irinjalakuda is situated 170 kms from the residence of the petitioner. The petitioner’s mother would have difficulties to travel all the way from Pathanamthitta to Irinjalakuda, to contest the above two proceedings. The petitioner proposes to file petitions before the Family Court, Pathanamthitta. The first respondent is also employed abroad. Therefore, it is necessary that the cases be transferred. Hence, the transfer petition. 4. Heard; Sri. Nobel Raju, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Kum.Anagha Lakshmy Raman, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and Sri. Dinesh Thankappan, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent. 5. The point is whether O.P.Nos.1254/2021 and ``` Tr.P.(C)Nos.229 & 236/2022 ``` ``` -:5:- ``` 956/2021 have to be transferred from the Family Court, Irinjalakuda, to the Family Court, Pathanamthitta?. 6. The cardinal ground for transfer of the proceedings is that the petitioner is represented by her mother and power of attorney holder in the two proceedings, who is 58 years of age, who would find it difficult to travel all the way and contest the two proceedings. 7. This Court in **Mini Antony v. Savio Aruja** [2022(3) KHC 42] has emphatically held that the discretionary powers of this Court under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908(in short, ‘Code’) cannot be invoked to suit the convenience of the power of attorney holder of a party. 8. A Division Bench of this Court in **Vidhya Mundekkat v. Akhilesh Jayaram** [2021(6) KHC 506] has categorically laid down the law that there is no ``` Tr.P.(C)Nos.229 & 236/2022 ``` ``` -:6:- ``` invariable rule whenever a wife makes a request for transfer, pointing out an inconvenience, this Court is obliged to exercise its powers under Section 24 of the Code. In the light of the above exposition of law by this Court and the contention of the petitioner that, the transfer is sort due to inconvenience being caused to her power of attorney holder, I am not inclined to exercise the discretionary power of this Court under Section 24 of the Code. The transfer petitions fail and are dismissed. Sd/- ## **C.S.DIAS,JUDGE** DST/27.09.22 //True copy/ P.A.To Judge ``` Tr.P.(C)Nos.229 & 236/2022 ``` ``` -:7:- ``` ## `APPENDIX OF TR.P(C) 229/2022` ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A1TRUE COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY DATED 31/12/2021 EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER. ANNEXURE A2TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION IN OP NO.956/2021 FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT, PENDING BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, IRINJALAKUDA. ``` ``` RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS: NIL ``` ``` Tr.P.(C)Nos.229 & 236/2022 ``` ``` -:8:- ``` ## `APPENDIX OF TR.P(C) 236/2022` ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A1TRUE COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY DATED 31/12/2021 EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER. ANNEXURE A2TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION IN OP NO.1254/2021FILEDBYTHE1ST RESPONDENT,PENDING BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT,IRINJALAKUDA. ``` ``` RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS: NIL ```