CRL.M.C. Nos. 230, 237, 2795 & 6498 of 2022 This is a consolidated High Court of Kerala decision by Justice P. V. Kunhikrishnan on four criminal miscellaneous petitions filed by GTL Infrastructure Ltd. (and Eswaravelan in one instance) seeking to quash proceedings under Section 482 CrPC in respect of prosecutions under Section 210 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. The petitions challenge four sets of proceedings: S.T. No. 807/2021 (Chittur), S.T. No. 1013/2021 (Chittur), C.C. No. 987/2020 (Kannur), and S.T. No. 179/2017 (Hosdurg). The core grievance is that prosecution under Section 210 is not maintainable where the Panchayat has not taken steps to recover the arrears by distraint; i.e., there is no averment of recovery measures or impracticability, which are prerequisites for prosecution. The court reviews the text of Section 210 and Rules 14 and 15 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Taxation, Levy and Appeal) Rules, 1996, stressing that recovery proceedings and reasons for impracticability must be stated in the complaint. The court also cites a prior order and a Kerala High Court decision (Pozhuthana case) to emphasize the necessity of compliance before prosecuting. Ultimately, the court quashes all four sets of proceedings, while enabling the Panchayats to pursue recovery through lawful means. The order underscores that quashing does not bar future recovery actions under law.
R.P.251 of 2023 in O.P.(FC) No.601 of 2022 This is a petition for review under Section 114 read with Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, challenging the Kerala High Court’s judgment dated 20 January 2023 in O.P.(FC) No.601 of 2022, which allowed the respondents’ I.A. No.6 of 2022 for attachment before judgment in the Family Court, Kollam. The review petitioner, Nikitha, sought to set aside or modify the order lifting/limiting attachment over two schedules of property: A-schedule (0.136 acre with a shop) and B-schedule (6.04 acres with a two-storeyed building). Her grounds included that Ext.P5, the valuation certificate by a Chartered Engineer, and the age certificate of the building issued by Mayyanad Grama Panchayat, were improperly relied upon; she argued the age certificate is electronic and needed certification under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, with authentication under the Information Technology Act, 2000. She further contended that, since she has an independent claim over A-schedule property in another proceeding (O.P.No.725 of 2016), the attachment should not have been lifted, and that she was not given a fair opportunity to present her case. The court, applying well-settled principles on review and emphasizing that review is not an appeal, held that no error apparent on the face of the record was demonstrated and dismissed the petition. The decision reiterates that review cannot be used to re-argue merits.
This is a Kerala High Court Criminal Miscellaneous Case (Crl.M.C. No.191 of 2023) filed under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of CC No.740/2018 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nedumangad, arising from Venjaramoodu Police Station Crime No.1398/2016. The petitioners are four accused charged with offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, and 506(i) r/w 149 IPC. The prosecution contends a criminal case for unlawful assembly and assault, but the petitioners’ counsel submits that the dispute between the parties has been resolved and the parties wish to end the prosecution. An affidavit from the victim supports the settlement, and the victim’s no-objection to quashing is noted, though the Public Prosecutor expresses reservations about quashing on the basis of settlement alone and notes that the final report has been filed. The court relies on State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others (2019) 5 SCC 688, which lays down when Section 482 power can quash non-compoundable offences with civil/private character once disputes are settled; it also cites Gian Singh and Narinder Singh, read harmoniously. After examining facts, the court finds the dispute private in nature, accepts the settlement, and allows the Crl.M.C., quashing all further proceedings in CC 740/2018.
This is a Kerala High Court writ petition (WP(C) No. 2502 of 2021) filed by the Secretary of Sree Avittom Thirunal Hospital, challenging the Regional Joint Labour Commissioner, Kollam’s order (dated 28.03.2019) under the Payment of Gratuity Act, which assessed gratuity at Rs. 2,92,947 for Sindhu S, a workman who retired on 16.03.2018 after 19 years of service. The appeal against the controlling authority’s order under Section 7(4) was dismissed as time-barred by the appellate authority (order Ext.P8 dated 10.12.2020). The petitioner argued that the remedy under Section 7 of the Act allows an appeal within 60 days, extendable by another 60 days for sufficient cause, and that Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act would apply only if the special law did not expressly exclude limitation. The petitioner relied on Supreme Court decisions to support condonation. The respondents contended that Section 7(7) expressly excludes the application of the Limitation Act, making the 60+60 period exclusive, and that delay cannot be condoned. The High Court held that the statute itself excludes limitation for appeals and that the appeal was rightly treated as time-barred, upholding the earlier order and dismissing the writ petition. The court explained the limits of Section 29(2) in this statutory context and upheld the law’s beneficial intent not to override explicit timeline provisions.
This original petitions challenge to Ext P.5 order in I.A.9597/2019 in O.S.610/2019 of the Principal Munsiff, Thiruvananthapuram, arises after the petitioner-defendant seeks an order under Article 227 challenging the order that dismissed a preliminary jurisdiction issue. The respondent-plaintiff filed a plaint for recovery of money; the petitioner contends the trial court lacks territorial jurisdiction because the entire transaction occurred outside its jurisdiction. The Munsiff’s Court held that the issue of territorial jurisdiction is a matter that can be decided only after evidence, and hence should be dealt with after hearing on merits, allegedly erroneously proceeding as if jurisdiction was not a root issue. The petitioner’s case relies on Order XIV Rule 2 CPC, which directs a court to pronounce judgment on all issues, and, importantly, to decide jurisdiction first where it is alleged. The judgment canvasses a line of authority, noting that the issue of jurisdiction goes to the root of the matter and, if there is no jurisdiction, any decree would be void. Citing Reghunathan Nair v Bobby A Thomas; Prasad R v Travancore Devaswom Board; Gopinathan KK v Kuttan Nair, and Dr. Joy P. Chungath v M s Lawkin Ltd, the court emphasizes that lack of territorial jurisdiction requires early determination. Accordingly, the High Court directs the subordinate court to determine territorial jurisdiction first and, if found to have jurisdiction, proceed with other issues under Order XIV Rule 110 CPC; if not, return the plaint. The order is issued under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, with the observed practical limitation that the decision remains subject to lawful proceedings.
The Kerala High Court, in a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly, heard W.A. No. 1765 of 2022 challenging the order in W.P.(C) No. 9031 of 2022. The writ petition challenged an eviction order under SARFAESI and sought to protect the petitioner’s right to property under Article 300A. The bank had initiated SARFAESI proceedings after the borrower defaulted on an overdraft facility secured by a property. The Chief Judicial Magistrate appointed an Advocate Commissioner to evict, and the writ petition sought to quash that appointment and to grant a hearing before eviction. The writ court later directed restoration of possession on payment of overdue dues under certain conditions. On admission, the bank argued that an auction notice had already been issued and that the High Court should not entertain a writ petition without exhausting available statutory remedies under SARFAESI, citing Varimadugu Obi Reddy v. B. Sreenivasulu and United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon to stress the exhaustion principle. The respondent borrower contended that the eviction order lacked proper notice and that the relief granted by the writ court was reasonable under the circumstances. Ultimately, the Division Bench allowed the writ appeal, set aside the impugned order, and left open the opportunity for the petitioner to raise contentions before the writ court, while noting that an auction notice had been issued.
This Original Petition (OP(C)) challenges Ext.P4, an order in I.A. No. 4 of 2021 directing the petitioners to deposit 50% of arrears of license fee, and Ext.P12, the common order in I.A. Nos. 9, 11, and 12 of 2022, in OS No. 60 of 2019 before the Second Additional Sub Court, Kozhikode. The respondents filed suit for a decree of mandatory injunction for vacant possession and to recover arrears. The petitioners resisted via Ext.P3(a) under Order XXXIX Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC; Ext.P3(b) counter was filed but allegedly not considered, and Ext.P4 was passed directing 50% deposit. Respondents sought breaks into the locked property (Exts. P5), let-out to third parties (Ext. P6), inventory (Ext. P8), and return of keys (Ext. P10); Ext. P12 granted some relief. The petitioners argued there is no admitted arrears, misnumbering of Ext.P3(b), and that Order XXXIX Rule 10 CPC does not apply where there is no trust-like admission. They rely on Balakrishna Agrawal and Others, Lalbiakthangi, Gujarat Co-operative Milk Marketing, Sangeeta Prints, and Koyakkanari Sivadasan for legal guidance. The High Court set aside Exts. P4 and P12 and directed fresh consideration of Ext.P3(a) after addressing Ext.P3(b) objections with due hearing, and ordered fresh consideration of Exts. P6, P8, and P10 by 25.03.2023, upholding the principle of due process and justice.
Golden Key Construction approached the Kerala High Court challenging the cancellation of its GST registration. The court scrutinizes the cancellation order, noting that the show-cause notice relied on Form GST REG-31, a form for suspension, not cancellation, and that Form REG-17 is the proper form for cancellation under Rule 21 of the CGST Rules. The notice Ext.P5 is found to lack the detailed particulars required by the rules, rendering the action void. The court cites a lineage of administrative-law principles, beginning with the maxim that where a statute prescribes a manner for performing an act, it must be done in that manner (citing Babu Verghese v. Bar Council of Kerala and related authorities such as Taylor v. Taylor, Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor, Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh, Deep Chand, and Singhara Singh). While discussing taxing statutes, the court recalls the Dilip Kumar principle of strict construction in taxation, but distinguishes it in light of the Kerala Supreme Court decision in Government of Kerala v. Mother Superior Adoration Convent (2021) 5 SCC 602, which holds that concessions should not be interpreted strictly in favor of revenue when promoting particular activities. The Gujarat decisions Aggarwal Dyeing and Printing and Sing Traders are noted as supportive, but Ext.P2 cancellation is ultimately quashed. The petition is allowed, though restoration of registration does not erase fiscal liabilities, which must be settled. The petitioner is required to file all defaulted returns with tax, late fees, interest, and penalties within two weeks of restoration.
WP(C) Nos.23186 of 2022 & connected cases This is a consolidated hearing by a single judge (Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V) of multiple writ petitions challenging Government Order G.O.(MS.) No. 121/2022 dated 7 July 2022 and the accompanying prospectus for Plus One admissions in Private Aided Higher Secondary Schools. The petitions attack the policy to reduce management quota to 20% and to reserve 10% of seats for a community declared by the management, contending that the 10% community quota violates Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution and that the government cannot prescribe or compel community-based admission in secular, privately run institutions. The court traces the historical allocations (1991 GO orders, 2003 division-bench intervention, 2005 reorganization) and notes that CAP (Centralized Allotment Process) has been adopted to ensure merit and transparency. The judge recognizes a legitimate policy objective to correct past anomalies but finds the 10% community quota unconstitutional, while upholding the 20% management quota. The petitions are disposed of with directions that 10% community seats be treated as open merit seats under CAP; the rest of the policy (20% management quota) remains intact. Admissions already made on the basis of declarations are not disturbed. The order reflects a balancing of merit and community considerations but rejects caste/community reservations in the management discipline of PAHS.
WP(C) No. 14342 of 2019 & con.cases The common issue across a cluster of writ petitions lies in the management and protection of the Thiruvabharana Patha, the traditional route followed to transport sacred ornaments from Pandalam to Sabarimala during Makara Sankranti. The Thiruvabharana Patha Samrakshana Samithi, along with several other petitioners, challenged encroachments and sought immediate removal and protection of this path, invoking Ext.P1 (2009) decisions and RTI-based data. The petitions also questioned the acts and procedures under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, Panchayat Raj acts, and the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, contending that encroachments and related constructions along the path impinge on temple property and public interest. The court scrutinized the adequacy of prior notices (mahazars) and held that eviction steps could not proceed unless petitioners were furnished with proper mahazars and afforded due opportunity for hearing. In a landmark disposition, the court disposed of WP(C)No.14342/2019 and connected matters with directions to (i) set aside notices issued without mahazars, (ii) issue fresh notices with mahazar, (iii) conduct personal hearings, and (iv) complete eviction actions within a fixed time-frame, while safeguarding the rights of temple properties and the interests of landless SC communities. The judgment emphasizes natural justice, fiduciary duties of trustees, and statutory remedies under the Land Conservancy Act and Panchayat rules, while affirming the Board’s supervisory role over Devaswoms.
WP(C) Nos. 28811/2021; 28817/2021; 28820/2021; 28921/2021 This judgment disposes of four writ petitions filed in the Kerala High Court seeking correction of a student’s name in SSLC mark sheets, migration/transfer certificates, and related documents so that the name matches that shown in the birth certificate. The petitions contend that the birth certificates contain the correct name and right parentage, whereas the mark lists and migration certificates incorrectly reflect the name, causing practical difficulties in admission, job, and further studies. The petitioners rely on documentary evidence such as Aadhaar cards and school leaving certificates to support the correction, and they invoke the ratio of the Supreme Court in Jigya Yadav v. C.B.S.E. (cited as 2021 (3) KLT 711 (SC)) to argue that limitations should not bar relief where the delay was not intentional and the petitioners were not in control due to immaturity. The court, after hearing counsel and reviewing the exhibits, notes that the relevant marks lists date from 2018–2020 and that the petitioners did not make timely representations to the authorities. Ultimately, the judge holds that the writ petitions are not maintainable in the given facts and directs that the petitioners pursue civil suits with detailed evidence to obtain appropriate decrees for correction. The matter cites the Jigya Yadav decision as persuasive authority.
WP(C) Nos. 26500/2020; 6687/2017; 20387/2018; 7642/2020; 8174/2020; 21917/2020; 2604/2021; 12699/2021; 29448/2021 These batch writ petitions interrogate the balance between the right to privacy in the digital age and the open justice/open data ethos of the Indian judiciary. The Kerala High Court consolidates debates on whether judgments containing personal data of litigants can be posted online and indexed by search engines, potentially infringing privacy and the so‑called right to be forgotten. The court traces privacy to constitutional guarantees (Article 21) and the broader jurisprudence recognizing informational privacy, while affirming that the open Court system is a foundational democratic value (publicity as the soul of justice) and that judicial data and public records must remain accessible to preserve transparency, accountability, and public confidence. It recognizes the evolving digital landscape, the role of search engines, and the need for a balancing framework where disclosure serves the public interest but can be restrained when privacy concerns are compelling, especially in matrimonial, family and custody matters. The judgment ultimately disposes of the petitions with a nuanced set of directions: de‑indexing or masking in certain family matters upon request, while preserving open access and ordering privacy notices; it also leaves legislative policy to clearly define the grounds for the right to be forgotten and related erasure/de‑indexing tools.
The petitioners, two sand dealers (P. D. Devachan and E. J. Jojo), challenge orders issued by District Collectors cancelling dealer licences for stocking and selling ordinary sand at stockyards in Ernakulam (and related orders in Pathanamthitta) under Rule 48-C of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967. The petitions argue that the Geologist, not the District Collector, is the competent authority to grant or renew licences; the District Collector’s Ext. P3 orders are without jurisdiction and violate the statutory scheme governing minor minerals. The government pleaders defend the District Collectors’ actions, citing powers under Rule 5 (and the River Banks Act, 2001) to prevent illegal sand mining and regulate sale, noting misuse of ‘P’ forms and the proximity of stockyards to river banks. The court analyzes the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules (Rules 3(iv), 48-C, 48-D, 48-F, 48-G, 48-I, 48-K, 62) and the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 (Sections 3, 9, 12, 13) along with related rules, and constitutional duties (Articles 48A, 51A(g)). It cites environmental jurisprudence, including M. C. Mehta and Soman, to emphasize precautionary principles and sustainable development. The judgment suspends the District Collector’s cancellation insofar as the petitioners are concerned, directing the Geologist to decide renewal or issuance of ‘P’ forms after hearing, with views from Revenue and Police, within three weeks. The writ petition is ultimately closed with these interim directions, pending further action by the Geologist.
This writ appeal challenges a Kerala High Court order concerning inter-state reservation in a Pan-India university recruitment. The 2nd respondent Kannur University issued Ext. P1 inviting applications for a single post of Associate Professor in Information Technology, earmarked for Muslims among OBCs, with other reservations (SC, ST, OBC non-creamy layer, differently-abled) per Kerala norms. The 5th respondent, a Karnataka native, produced a Karnataka OBC certificate and was admitted to the process. The petitioner contended that non-domicile candidates cannot be considered for state-reserved posts under KS&SSR, that Kannur University First Statute (1998) requires Kerala domicile for such reservations, and that UGC Regulation 2018 cannot override state reservations. The University and 5th respondent argued that Ext. P1 envisaged an All-India recruitment in line with UGC norms, that a Muslim candidate from any state may compete, and that the 5th’s OBC status falls within both Kerala and Karnataka lists. The Single Judge held that Regulation 3.1 of the UGC Regulations applies to an All-India pool and that non-Keralites could participate; estoppel prevented the petitioner from challenging the process. On appeal, the Division Bench held that the 5th’s reservation claim based on Karnataka certification is impermissible, affirmed that state reservation is not overridden by UGC, and directed appointment of the petitioner (2nd rank) within one month. The WA is allowed accordingly.
Believers Church, an Episcopal church running multiple educational institutions in the campus at Thiruvalla, challenged the Kerala State Electricity Board's (KSEB) tariff classification change. The petition contends that the Campus was classified under EHT General (A) and paid accordingly, but the Electricity Regulatory Commission later changed the tariff to EHT General (B) with effect from 2017, leading to a demand of Rs. 9,90,74,445 as arrears. The petitioner asserts that the change in tariff has been upheld as valid by higher courts (citing Sr. Annie and Another v. Kerala State Electricity Board and Others) and argues that Arrears for 2017 onward should be contestable only through proper recovery proceedings, not via unilateral disconnection. The petitioner, a self-financed unaided educational institution (and later a medical college), sought to invoke Regulation 45 of the Electricity Supply Code, 2014 to allow the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum to register Ext.P11 complaint and to stay disconnection, arguing that the complaint process is a remedy available under law. The respondents relied on the legality of tariff revision and maintained that recovery of dues is permissible, citing a Supreme Court decision in Rahamatullah Khan alias Rahamjulla. The court, while noting the ratio in Sr. Annie remains, disposed of the petition by directing the CGRF to register the complaint and hear it within ten days, with a stay on disconnection pending such proceedings and without commenting on the merits.
This Kerala High Court appeal under Section 104 read with Order XLIII Rule 1(c) CPC arises from an order dated 26.06.2006 by the Land Acquisition Reference Court (Sub Court, Hosdurg) dismissing IA 454/2006 in LAR No.124/2003, a petition for restoration of a claim petition in a Section 18 reference under the Land Acquisition Act for enhanced compensation. The reference related to 1.13 ares acquired for construction of a railway overbridge on National Highway 17 (now NH-66) at Pallikkare crossing. The reference court had posted the case on 06.03.2006; the claimant was absent, and the reference was rejected without considering merits. IA 454/2006, allowed with payment of costs, was not complied with, leading to dismissal. The appellant contends that non-participation cannot justify disposal without merits and that restoration is the proper remedy to correct a judicial error. Relying on Khazan Singh, Krishna Pillai, Joseph, Vilasini Amma, Kunjayyan, and Rajmani, the court held that a Section 18 reference cannot be closed for default and must be decided on merits, and restoration is an available remedy. The High Court condoned a portion of the delay, found laches in part, and ultimately allowed the appeal, setting aside the 2006 restoration/ dismissal orders and directing a merits hearing with evidence. It clarified that any enhanced amount shall not carry interest for the delay in filing this appeal.
OT.REV NO. 79 OF 2015 & WP(C) 25085 OF 2015 This judgment arises from the OT.Revision proceedings (OT.Rev No. 79 of 2015) and a connected WP(C) No. 25085 of 2015 challenging a penalty under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The petitioners, M/s Kunnath Pharmaceuticals (and its legal heirs in the revision) challenged Ext. P5, a penalty order under Section 67(1) of the KVAT Act for the year 2005-06, following an assessment by the Intelligence Officer (IB) at Mattancherry for suppressed turnover. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) had remanded for re-examination and recalculation, and the Kerala VAT Appellate Tribunal dismissed the cross-objections. The core legal question concerns whether penalties under Section 67 can be based on estimation or “best-judgment” turnover, rather than on determinable evasion supported by materials. The court cites UK Monu Timbers (2012) and Paisons v. Intelligence Officer to emphasize that penalties must be grounded in actual evasion and that discretion must be exercised with objective material, not on arbitrary estimates. The High Court ultimately allows the OT Revision and WP, expunges the Tribunal’s directive to recalculate, and directs the Intelligence Officer to proceed with penalty proceedings in accordance with law after hearing the dealer. The decision clarifies that penalties should be evidence-based rather than conjectural in this statutory framework.
This writ petition, filed by The South Indian Bank Ltd., seeks a direction to erase all entries of attachments on a mortgaged property from the Encumbrance Certificate, dating the mortgage to 19 January 2001. The Bank contends it acquired an equitable mortgage over the property and later purchased it after the default, with a Sale Certificate registered. The Encumbrance Certificate (Ext.P4) shows multiple attachments entered by various respondents after the mortgage date, prompting the Bank to approach the High Court for relief. Respondents argue that attachments were issued by competent Civil Courts and reflect lawful orders; the Registrar is thus constrained from erasing them. Some respondents admit that attachments were indeed obtained after 19 January 2001. The Court places emphasis on settled law, citing Secretary, Keechery Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Sajitha Nizar Alias Sajitha P.M. (2020 (6) KLT 68), holding that if the Bank can establish a first charge based on a prior equitable mortgage, attachments created subsequently must yield to the Bank’s right to proceed under the SARFAESI Act. On these premises, the Court finds in favor of the Bank, directing the Registrar to efface all attachments on Ext.P4 post-19 January 2001 and to issue a fresh Encumbrance Certificate, within a month. Sale Certificate having been registered, relief is granted to safeguard the Bank’s security interest under SARFAESI.
This writ petition challenges Ext.P8 common order in I.A. Nos.325/2009 and 331/2009 in OS No.228/1996 before the Munsiff Court, Paravur, and Ext.P10 judgment in CMA No.67/2009 before the District Court, Kollam. The petitioner, Sujath Shah, describes himself as the 9th defendant in a suit filed by respondents 1 and 2 seeking declaration of ownership over plaint 'B' schedule property and a decree for mandatory injunction to demolish a wall. The trial court had dismissed Ext.P3 and Ext.P4—applications to set aside an ex-parte decree and to condone delay—on the ground that the petitioner’s power-of-attorney holder failed to attend, and later, the restoration applications Ext.P6 and Ext.P7 were also dismissed. The appellate court affirmed the common order (Ext.P8) and CMA No.67/2009 (Ext.P10). The High Court, invoking Article 227 of the Constitution, held that the delay and the ex-parte decrees deserve liberal consideration. Citing G.P. Srivastava v. R.K. Raizada and Robin Thapa v. Rohit Dora, it held that sufficient cause must be liberally construed and that adjudication on merits should be possible despite defaults. Accordingly, Ext.P8 and Ext.P10 were set aside subject to conditions, including a cost deposit and directions to expedite proceedings, while protecting the interests of respondents. The petition was disposed of with directions to proceed on merits and resolve the pending issues expeditiously.
This transfer petition under Section 24 CPC arises from a civil suit, OS No.8/2019, filed by the petitioner for declaration of title, possession and injunction against her mother (1st respondent) and siblings (2nd to 4th respondents) concerning the properties of late Ramachandran Nair, husband of the 1st respondent. The petitioner seeks transfer of the OS from the Munsiff Court, Adoor to the Family Court, Pathanamthitta, so that it can be consolidated with five related proceedings pending in the Family Court (O.P Nos. 861/2014, 1025/2014, 1046/2014, 1016/2014, 1060/2014) pertaining to the same assets. The petitioner argues that consolidation before a single court would save judicial time, prevent conflicting decisions, and address disputes arising out of the familial relationship surrounding Ramachandran Nair’s estate. She relies on decisions of this Court that Section 7(1)(d) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 encompasses matters arising from marital circumstances. The respondents did not oppose these submissions. On considering the pleadings and authorities, the Court holds that transfer is warranted to consolidate the matters in the Family Court, Pathanamthitta. The petition is allowed; records to be transmitted; the Family Court to proceed with consolidation with O.P 861/2014.
