High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2025-03-19Common order disposing of four connected Transf...

Vijayakumar M vs Sathidevi A.L

Case / Petition Number:Tr.P(C) Nos. 628/2024, 645/2024, 761/2024, 764/2024

Neutral Citation:2025:KER:23823

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Basant Balaji
Judgment Date: 2025-03-19
Court Decision / Holding: The court dismissed Tr.P(C) Nos. 628/2024 and 645/2024; allowed Tr.P(C) Nos. 761/2024 and 764/2024, transferring OP No.424/2023 (Malappuram) and OP No.434/2023 (Kozhikode) to the Family Court, Vadakara. The transferor courts shall transfer records to Vadakara FC, which shall dispose of the cases in accordance with law. Parties to appear before Vadakara FC on 29.04.2025.
Final Disposition: Common order disposing of four connected Transfer Petitions: 628/2024 and 645/2024 dismissed; 761/2024 and 764/2024 allowed; OPs 424/2023 and 434/2023 transferred to Family Court, Vadakara; records to be transmitted; appearance date set for 29-04-2025.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Vijayakumar M

Respondents

Sathidevi A.L.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• P.V. Anoop
• Phijo Pradeesh Philip
• Abin Benny
• Anju R S.
• K C Mohamed Rashid
• K J Mohankumar
• Pushparajan Kodoth
• Vandana Menon
• Vimal Vijay
• Vinayak Manoharan P.

Counsels for Respondents

• Pushparajan Kodoth
• K. Jayesh Mohankumar
• Vandana Menon
• Vimal Vijay
• Vinayak Manoharan P.

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Batch of four Transfer Petitions (Civil) before the Kerala High Court—Tr.P(C) Nos. 628/2024, 645/2024, 761/2024 and 764/2024—relates to matrimonial disputes between Vijayakumar M (husband) and Sathidevi A.L. The petitions were heard together, with the husband-petitions (628/2024 and 645/2024) seeking transfer of OP 162 of 2023 (Vadakara) and OP 434 of 2023 (Kozhikode) to Malappuram, arguing both parties reside in Kozhikode and that travel would burden the petitioner. The wife-petitions (761/2024 and 764/2024) sought transfer of OP 424 of 2023 (Malappuram) and OP 434 of 2023 (Kozhikode) to Vadakara, asserting that the marital disputes warrant convenience for the wife: travel distance exceeds 90 km one-way, totaling about three hours per trip, and age-related health issues without accompaniment render frequent travel impracticable. The High Court, invoking Supreme Court precedents that emphasize the wife’s convenience (Sumithra Singh v. Kumar Sanjay and another; Mona Aresh Goel v. Aresh Satya Goel; Vaishali Shridhar Jagtap v. Sridhar Vishwanath Jagtap; Santhini v. Vijaya Venkatesh), held that convenience to the wife governs in such transfers. The court dismissed 628/2024 and 645/2024, while allowing 761/2024 and 764/2024, transferring OP 424/2023 and OP 434/2023 to Vadakara. Records shall be transferred, and parties must appear before Vadakara FC on 29-04-2025. The judgment consolidates four petitions into a common order with a view to expediting and balancing access to justice at Vadakara.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Priority of the wife’s convenience in matrimonial disputes; transfer of cases on compassionate/compassionate grounds where hardship is shown.
Hardship and convenience considerations in matrimonial dispute transfers as per Supreme Court precedents.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicants argued for transfer based on convenience and hardship principles, noting the wife’s health issues, advanced age, and substantial travel distance (over 90 km one-way) to Malappuram or Kozhikode. They asserted that Vadakara is more accessible and would facilitate timely adjudication of O.P. 434/2023 and related matters. The husband-petitions claimed both parties reside in Kozhikode, contending transfers would unnecessarily complicate proceedings and burden the court system. The applicants relied on Supreme Court jurisprudence emphasizing the primacy of the wife’s convenience in matrimonial disputes to justify transfer in these cases.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argued against transfer, asserting that both parties reside in Kozhikode and that the current fora are better suited to address the issues, preserving judicial efficiency and avoiding disruption of ongoing proceedings. They contended that the petitions should be dismissed where no compelling cause exists, and urged adherence to local jurisdiction unless strong reasons are shown.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Sumithra Singh v. Kumar Sanjay and another	(2001) 10 SCC 41	Positive	SC held that in matrimonial disputes the convenience of the wife is the primary consideration; transfers have been effected accordingly.
Mona Aresh Goel v. Aresh Satya Goel	(2000) 9 SCC 255	Positive	Affirmed principle of prioritizing the wife’s convenience in transfer orders.
Vaishali Shridhar Jagtap v. Sridhar Vishwanath Jagtap	AIR 2016 SC 3584	Positive	SC decision reinforcing preference for wife’s convenience in such transfers.
Santhini v. Vijaya Venkatesh	2017 (4) KLT 415 (SC)	Positive	SC guidance cited in favor of transfer based on wife’s convenience in matrimonial matters.

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 Vijayakumar M vs Sathidevi A.L and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

2025:KER:23823 1 Tr PC 628, 645, 761 and 764/2024 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI`** ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 19[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 28TH PHALGUNA, 1946 ``` ``` TR.P(C) NO.628OF 2024 ``` ``` TO TRANSFER OPDIV NO.162 OF 2023 OF FAMILY COURT, VADAKARA ``` ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` VIJAYAKUMAR M, AGED 55 YEARS S/O VELAYUDHAN NAIR , MULIYIL(HO), PANDHIRAKAV P.O, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673019 ``` ``` BY ADVS.P.V.ANOOP PHIJO PRADEESH PHILIP ABIN BENNY ANJU R S. K C MOHAMED RASHID ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` SATHIDEVI A.L,AGED 51 YEARS S/O APPUTTI NAIR, SHRUTHI HOUSE, MEPPAYOOR P.O, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673524 ``` ``` BY ADVS. PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR(K/2535/1999) VANDANA MENON(K/153/2007) VIMAL VIJAY(K/000214/2018) VINAYAK MANOHARAN P.(K/001679/2024) ``` ``` THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.03.2025, ALONG WITH Tr.P(C).645/2024, 761/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 2025:KER:23823 2 Tr PC 628, 645, 761 and 764/2024 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI`** ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 19[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 28TH PHALGUNA, 1946 ``` ``` TR.P(C) NO.645OF 2024 ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN OPDIV NO.434 OF 2023 OF FAMILY COURT,KOZHIKODE ``` ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` VIJAYAKUMAR M, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O VELAYUDHAN NAIR , MULIYIL(HO), PANDHIRAKAV P.O, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673019 ``` ``` BY ADVS.P.V.ANOOP PHIJO PRADEESH PHILIP ABIN BENNY ANJU R S. K C MOHAMED RASHID ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` SATHIDEVI A.L,AGED 51 YEARS S/O APPUTTI NAIR, SHRUTHI HOUSE, MEPPAYOOR P.O, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673524 ``` ``` BY ADVS. PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR(K/2535/1999) VANDANA MENON(K/153/2007) VIMAL VIJAY(K/000214/2018) VINAYAK MANOHARAN P.(K/001679/2024) ``` ``` THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.03.2025, ALONG WITH Tr.P(C).628/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 2025:KER:23823 3 Tr PC 628, 645, 761 and 764/2024 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI`** ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 19[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 28TH PHALGUNA, 1946 ``` ``` TR.P(C) NO. 761 OF 2024 ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN OP NO.424 OF 2023 OF FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM ``` ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` SATHIDEVI A.L, AGED 52 YEARS, D/O APPUTTY NAIR, 'SRUTHI' (H), MEPPAYUR PO, KOZHIKODE (WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF PAYYOLI POLICE STATION.), PIN - 673524 ``` ``` BY ADVS. K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH VANDANA MENON VIMAL VIJAY VINAYAK MANOHARAN P. ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` VIJAYAKUMAR M, S/O VELAYUDHAN NAIR, MULIYIL (H) PANTHEERAKAVU PO, KOZHIKODE (WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF PANTHEERAKAVU POLICE STATION.), PIN - 673019 ``` ``` THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.03.2025, ALONG WITH Tr.P(C).628/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 2025:KER:23823 4 Tr PC 628, 645, 761 and 764/2024 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI`** ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 19[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 28TH PHALGUNA, 1946 ``` ``` TR.P(C) NO. 764 OF 2024 ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN OP NO.434 OF 2023 OF FAMILY COURT,KOZHIKODE ``` ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` SATHIDEVI A.L.,AGED 52 YEARS D/O APPUTTY NAIR, 'SRUTHI' (H), MEPPAYUR PO, KOZHIKODE (WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF PAYYOLI POLICE STATION.), PIN - 673524 ``` ``` BY ADVS. K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH VANDANA MENON VIMAL VIJAY VINAYAK MANOHARAN P. ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` VIJAYAKUMAR M.,AGED 56 YEARS ``` ``` S/O VELAYUDHAN NAIR, MULIYIL (H) PANTHEERAKAVU PO, KOZHIKODE (WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF PANTHEERAKAVU POLICE STATION.), PIN - 673019 ``` ``` THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.03.2025, ALONG WITH Tr.P(C).628/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 2025:KER:23823 5 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** Tr PC 628, 645, 761 and 764/2024 ## **O R D E R** (Dated this the 19[th] day of March 2025) **[Tr.P(C) Nos.628/2024, 645/2024, 761/2024 and 764/2024]** The petitioner in Tr.P.C.Nos.628 and 645 of 2024 is the husband and in Tr.P.C.Nos.761 and 764 of 2024 is the wife. (In all these Petitions, since the parties are one and the same, heard together and a common order is passed.) 2. Tr.P.C. No.761 of 2024 is taken as a leading case for convenience and the facts are as follows: The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 11.2.1996 and two children are born out of their wedlock. The children are under the care of the wife. The husband is working abroad. When the marital relationship between the parties got strained, the wife filed O.P.No.162 of 2023 before the Family Court, Vadakara seeking divorce and O.P.No.424 of 2023 before the Family Court, Malappuram for partition of 2025:KER:23823 6 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** Tr PC 628, 645, 761 and 764/2024 joint property belonging to the parties. O.P.No.434 of 2023, which is a divorce petition filed by the husband is pending before the Family Court, Kozhikode. 3. Tr.P.C.Nos.764 and 761 of 2024 are filed by the wife to transfer O.P.No.434 of 2023 pending before the Family Court, Kozhikode to the Family Court, Vadakara and O.P.No.424 of 2023 pending before the Family Court, Malappuram to the Family Court, Vadakara respectively. The husband filed Tr.P.C.Nos.628 and 645 of 2024, to transfer O.P. (Div.) No.162 of 2023 from the Family court, Vadakara and O.P.No.434 of 2023 from the Family Court, Kozhikode to the Family Court, Malappuram. 4. Heard. 5. The petitioner contends that she is not in a position to travel from her residence at Vadakara to Malappuram for 2025:KER:23823 7 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** Tr PC 628, 645, 761 and 764/2024 each posting, since the distance is more than 90 kms. and time for travel is around 3 hrs on one side. Moreover, she is suffering from age related health issues and there is nobody to accompany her. Hence, she wants transfer of the cases as mentioned above. 6. The husband, on the other hand, vehemently opposed to the transfer contending that both the parties are residents of Kozhikode. She filed one petition before the Family Court, Vadakara and another in Malappuram at her convenience. Out of the three cases, which arose between the parties, one is pending before the Family Court, Vadakara and another before the Family Court, Malappuram. Only one case, filed by the wife, is pending before the Family Court, Kozhikode and hence, he seeks the transfer of above cases. 2025:KER:23823 8 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** Tr PC 628, 645, 761 and 764/2024 7. The Apex Court in **Sumitha Singh v. Kumar** **Sanjay and another** [(2001)10 SCC 41], **Mona Aresh Goel V.Aresh Satya Goel[(2000) 9 SCC 255]** , **Vaishali Shridhar Jagtap V.Sridahar Vishwanath Jagtap[AIR 2016 SC 3584** ] and **Santhini V.Vijaya Venkatesh [2017** **(4) KLT 415(SC)]** held that, in matrimonial disputes, the prior consideration is to the convenience of the wife and in such cases the transfer has been effected. Thus, in the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the afore cited decisions and considering the comparative hardship of the wife, I am inclined to dispose of these Transfer Petitions as follows: (i) Tr.P.C.Nos.628 of 2024 and 645 of 2024 are dismissed. (ii) Tr.P.C.Nos.761 and 764 of 2024 are allowed, 2025:KER:23823 9 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** Tr PC 628, 645, 761 and 764/2024 transferring O.P.No.424 of 2023 from the Family Court, Malappuram and O.P.No.434 of 2023 from the Family Court, Kozhikode, to the Family Court, Vadakara. The transferor courts shall immediately transfer the records to the Family Court, Vadakara, and the Family Court, Vadakara shall, upon receipt of the records, dispose of the cases in accordance with law. The parties are directed to appear before the Family Court, Vadakara on 29.04.2025. ## **Sd/-** **BASANT BALAJI JUDGE** dl/ 2025:KER:23823 10 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** Tr PC 628, 645, 761 and 764/2024 ## **`APPENDIX OF TR.P(C) 645/2024`** ## **`PETITIONER ANNEXURES`** ``` Annexure A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION IN OP NO. 434 OF 2023 FILED BY THE PETITIONER AGAINST RESPONDENT DATED 10.03.2023 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, KOZHIKODE Annexure B TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION IN OP NO. 162 OF 2023 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT AGAINST THE PETITIONER DATED 17.02.2023 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, VADAKARA Annexure C TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION IN OP NO. 424 OF 2023 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT AGAINST PETITIONER DATED 12.04.2023 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM ``` 2025:KER:23823 11 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** Tr PC 628, 645, 761 and 764/2024 ## **`APPENDIX OF TR.P(C) 761/2024`** ## **`PETITIONER ANNEXURES`** ``` Annexure A ``` ``` A TRUE COPY OF PETITION IN OP 424/2023 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM DATED 12.04.2023 FILED BY THE PETITIONER ``` 2025:KER:23823 12 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** Tr PC 628, 645, 761 and 764/2024 ## **`APPENDIX OF TR.P(C) 764/2024`** ## **`PETITIONER ANNEXURES`** ``` Annexure A ``` ``` A TRUE COPY OF PETITION IN OP 434/2023 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT ON THE FILE FAMILY COURT, KOZHIKODE DATED 10.03.2024 ``` 2025:KER:23823 13 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** Tr PC 628, 645, 761 and 764/2024 ## **`APPENDIX OF TR.P(C) 628/2024`** ## **`PETITIONER ANNEXURES`** ``` Annexure A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION IN OP NO. 162 OF 2023 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT AGAINST THE PETITIONER DATED 17.02.2023 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, VADAKARA ``` ## **`Annexure B`** ``` TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION IN OP NO. 424 OF 2023 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT AGAINST PETITIONER DATED 12.04.2023 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM ```