CRL.RC No. 142 of 2018 and connected cases This is an omnibus order of the Kerala High Court, rendered on 20 December 2023 by Justice P. G. Ajithkumar, addressing a batch of suo motu criminal revision cases (CRL.RC Nos. 142 of 2018 and connected cases) arising from S.T. Nos. in Kollam. The court records that the trial court proceedings were terminated by invoking Section 258 Cr.P.C. on the ground that notices to the accused could not be served. Noting the repeated failure to serve notices, the court cites a Division Bench decision in Suo motu v. State of Kerala and another (2023 KHC Online 821), which discussed when Section 258 can be invoked in summons cases that do not qualify as petty offences and where locating the accused is impracticable; the magistrate must be satisfied that reasonable steps were taken and that the cost of securing appearance exceeds the maximum fine. The order tabulates the offences involved (IPC, MV Act, and Abkari Act provisions such as 279 IPC; 185 MV Act; 3(1) r/w 181 MV Act; 15(c)/63 Abkari Act; etc.). Ultimately, the court concludes that continuing the proceedings would be futile given the lack of service prospects, and accordingly closes all the revision cases. The decision relies on the cited precedent to validate stoppage under Section 258 and ends with a formal disposition to terminate proceedings.”
This is a Motor Accident Claims Appeal filed by the New India Assurance Company Limited (3rd respondent/appellant) challenging the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam, in O.P.(M.V.) No.1833 of 2016. The Tribunal had awarded a total sum of Rs.52,22,500/- to the claimants, including compensation for loss of consortium and love and affection, as well as other heads, in a death_collision case where the deceased was reportedly earning as a graphic designer. The appellant contends that the Tribunal erred in fixing the deceased’s monthly income; Exts.A7(a) and A7(b) suggest Rs.32,000 per month, but the Court found no proper documentary proof of regular income, noting payments on a contract basis with no tax records or receipts. The High Court reduced the monthly income to Rs.24,500. The Court also scrutinized heads like pain and suffering and love and affection, and invoked the decisions in United Insurance Co. v. Satinder Kaur and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, to modify the award. It increased the consortium amount (to Rs.1,60,000 for four legal heirs) and deducted other heads, such as pain and suffering and love and affection, leading to a revised total of Rs.43,34,375. The insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced amount with NEFT/RTGS and pay interest as specified.
WP(C) Nos.7070 & 9671 OF 2022 These two connected writ petitions challenge a seniority and promotion dispute for the post of Principal at Kandamangalam Higher Secondary School (an aided institution under the Kerala Education Act and Rules). The Petitioner in WP(C) No.7070/2022, Rajeshwari Devi S., alleges she was appointed as Principal on 29 May 2019 in a retirement vacancy, but her appointment was not approved due to a seniority dispute with Smt. Sangeetha R. Nair (Petitioner in WP(C) No.9671/2022). Both petitioners began service as HSSTs in 2000, with an earlier HSA stint in 1999. The dispute centers on whether seniority should be determined by the provisional seniority list (Ext.P4) and Rule 37(2) of Chapter XIV(A) KER or by Chapter XXXII of KER. Ext.P4, approved on 06.05.2019, placed Sangeetha above Rajeshwari, but Ext.P9 later reversed this (and Ext.P14 upheld it). The petitioners rely on Ext.P11–P12 government orders and Rule 37(2) to contend their seniority should be reckoned by the date of first appointment within the same school and that HSA service should count for seniority. The respondents argue that for Higher Secondary, Chapter XXXII governs appointment and seniority; XIV(A) does not apply unless expressly adopted; the court should follow XXXII’s framework. The judgment surveys Pathanapuram Taluk Samajam, Sam Joseph, Ramesan, and Lilly, concluding that Chapter XXXII governs Higher Secondary seniors; Rule 37(2) cannot be blindly applied and a vacuum exists. Consequently, WP7070 is dismissed, WP9671 is allowed, directing appointment of Sangeetha as Principal from 01.04.2019, with 3rd respondent to approve and the Government to act within time, including retirement from service on 31.05.2023. The order is to be implemented with dispatch and guidance to the State to address the legal vacuum.
RP No.56 of 2022 in O.P.(C)980 of 2016 This is a review petition under Section 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 CPC challenging the 1 November 2021 judgment in O.P.(C)980/2016 of the Kerala High Court. The original suit, filed for partition, contained two prayers: (A) partition of the plaint schedule properties by metes and bounds with half share to the plaintiff, and (B) settlement of accounts and past mesne profits of ₹25 lakhs, with future profits and costs to be determined. The trial court passed a preliminary decree (Ext.P5) ordering partition into two equal shares, allocating one share to the plaintiff and the other to the defendant, while relegating other disputes to final decree. The court also indicated that past profits would be proportionate to the respective shares, with the amount for past profits limited to three years prior to suit, and future profits till possession. Ext.P7 was a review petition alleging that the power-of-attorney holder was entitled to an account from the date of agency and not just three years prior, that mesne profits should not have been decided in the preliminary decree, and that ½ court fee should be refunded where consent exists. The High Court ultimately dismissed the review petition, holding that the matter was not disposed of solely on admission or compromise and that the final decree stage remained, so no refund of half court fee was warranted. The decision turns on interpretation of settlement, final decree proceedings, and Section 69 refund rules.
Kunhabdulla and Jameela, appellants, challenged the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Vatakara award in OP(MV) 735/2012 dated 27.09.2016, granting compensation for the death of Shaheer in a motor accident on 04.11.2011. The Tribunal held the ambulance driver negligent and the insurer liable, awarding Rs.11,12,118 (rounded to Rs.11,12,120) with 9% interest. The claimants, aged 24 at death, alleged the deceased was a BSNL contractor with monthly income of Rs.15,000 (Ext.A5) and urged just compensation under welfare legislation. The insurer contested liability and quantum. On appeal, the appellants sought enhancement, arguing the income and loss components were underestimated; they invoked Ramachandrappa v. Manager and Syed Sadiq v. Divisional Manager to fix a higher monthly income, apply future prospects, and adjust deductions for personal expenses. The respondents urged maintainability objections, citing M.A.C.A. No. 558/2019 and Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC, and defended the Tribunal’s quantum. The High Court rejected the maintainability objection as inapplicable to ongoing proceedings, and, applying Pranay Sethi with Satinder Kaur and Somwati principles, re-evaluated the loss of dependency, funeral, pain and suffering, and loss of estate, fixing Rs.10,000 monthly income, 40% future prospects, and 50% personal expenses deduction. The award was enhanced by Rs.7,02,000 and adjusted in light of losses of love and affection, resulting in an overall higher compensation payable by the insurer. The appeal was allowed and the award modified accordingly.
CRL.A Nos. 1938, 1939, 2038 and 2175 of 2011 These four Criminal Appeals (Cr.A. Nos. 1938, 1939, 2038 and 2175 of 2011) arise from four Complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, filed by M/S Eicher Motors Ltd against C.Y. Salim. The Trial Court convicted the accused for dishonour of cheques issued in discharge of alleged debts, directing payment of Rs. 19,500 per cheque and sentencing to fine with a default simple imprisonment. The Appellate Court (Additional Sessions Judge, Adhoc-I) acquitted, reasoning that the complainant had repossessed the vehicle and relying on Ext. D3, a copy of a complaint in another case, to find no legally enforceable debt. The High Court, in a common judgment, over the four appeals, set aside the Appellate Court’s acquittals and upheld the Trial Court’s conviction, reinstating and reviving the sentence. It held that Ext. D3 was improperly admitted and relied upon, and that the doctrine of reverse onus under Sections 139/118 NI Act applies; the non-issuance of reply notices and the standard of proof in this context must follow Rangappa, Kalamani Tex, Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel and Rupesh Manger decisions. The Court reaffirmed the presumption in favour of the complainant and emphasized proper evidentiary procedure. The appeals were allowed and the conviction restored, with sentence and compensation details to be executed as directed."
This criminal appeal, CRL.A No. 997 of 2006, is by E. Muhammed alias Kunhalan, the first accused in SC No. 36 of 2005, challenging his conviction for offences under sections 489B and 489C IPC and the concurrent sentence imposed by the Sessions Court, Manjeri. The trial record shows that on 27 January 1998 the accused was found in possession of five counterfeit ₹100 notes and, according to the prosecution, attempted to purchase provisions from PW3’s shop using those notes. PW1, then Sub-Inspector at Nilambur, registered a suo motu crime; MO1 counterfeit notes were seized; Exts P1–P10 and other material were placed before the court. The Sessions Court convicted A1 for 489C and sentenced him to three years’ rigorous imprisonment and a ₹5,000 fine; A2 was acquitted. On admission of the appeal this Court noted that A1 had died, raising questions about abatement, but held that an appeal cannot abate for a sentence of fine alone under Section 394(2) Cr.P.C., and the matter proceeds on merits. The High Court examined the evidence, including the police witnesses PW1 and PW2, as well as PW3, whose testimony was declared hostile, yet found it corroborative. It also relied on Ext P2 seizure and MO1 notes to establish the counterfeit currency. The court concluded that the evidence sufficed to sustain the conviction and dismissed the appeal, upholding the Sessions Court’s verdict.
The petitioners, nine teachers, challenged the denial of approval of their appointments in Lower Primary, Upper Primary and LG Hindi Teacher posts in Poilkave U.P. School, Edakkulam, created in 2006–2011 as ‘additional division’ vacancies. The Government bans on appointments during the period were imposed by G.O.(P) No.317/2005/G.Edn (dated 17.8.2005) and later lifted by G.O.(P) No.10/10/G.Edn (12.1.2010) with conditions, including a bond by the Manager to appoint further protected teachers if vacancies arose. The petitioners were subsequently regularized under the comprehensive teacher’s package via G.O.(P) No.199/2011/G.Edn (dated 01.06.2011) with effect from 01.06.2011. They rely on Ext.P26 judgment directing that similarly situated teachers be treated as if bonds were executed, and thus appointments during the ban period be approved. The respondents contend that appointments in such vacancies must be apportioned 1:1 and that non-execution of bonds requires compliance with GO 10/10 prior to approval, with several matters pending before the Supreme Court. The court notes that Ext.P26 and related decisions require reconsideration of Ext.P28, quashes Ext.P28, and directs the 1st respondent to re-examine Ext.P27 in light of the law in Ext.P26, providing notice and a three-month window for fresh orders.
23186 of 2022 & connected cases This batch of writ petitions challenges Government orders and the prospectus for Plus One admission in Private Aided Higher Secondary Schools in Kerala for the 2022-23 academic year. The core issue is the Government’s policy decision to cap management quota at 20% in PAHS and to allocate 10% of seats to a community quota within the management, the latter being contingent on the management declaring the community to which it belongs. The petitions contend that the 10% community quota violates the constitutional guarantees of equality (Articles 14 and 15) and that forcing declarations of community affiliation by school management breaches secular principles, while also arguing that the 30% management quota historically available to some schools cannot be unilaterally curtailed. The court traces the evolution of admission quotas since 1990, noting precedents that restricted or struck down community-based quotas (including Unnikrishnan and Pattali Makkal Katchi line of authorities) and emphasizes that policy decisions are generally not subject to judicial review unless they trample fundamental rights, statutory provisions, or are manifestly arbitrary. The judge ultimately upholds the 20% management quota but strikes down the 10% community quota as unconstitutional, directing that the 10% seats be treated as open merit CAP seats. The petitions are disposed accordingly with directions to implement CAP strictly.
The petitioner, Binil Raj, seeks redress for the omission of the 3rd respondent Tahsildar in entertaining his Form-A application under Section 6(3) of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961, for reassessment of Basic Tax and updating entries in the Basic Tax Register (BTR) after an enabling order under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 (KLU Order) was issued in 2015. The predecessor-in-interest obtained Ext. P2 under Clause 6(2) of the KLU Order permitting non-agricultural use of land comprising 13.28 acres in Re-Survey No.9/7-2-2, Block 35, Kunnathunadu, Ernakulam District. Despite this enabling order, the land remains described as paddy land in revenue records, and Ext. P3 was not acted upon by the Tahsildar. The respondents contend that Ext. P2’s genuineness and current status require verification before any reassessment under the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961. The court relies on the principles from Mary Abraham v. State of Kerala and others (2020) and District Collector, Ernakulam v. Fr. Jose Uppani (2020) that post-enabling-order reassessment is required, and earlier BTR classifications become redundant. The bench also notes the KPV Reality Private Limited v. State of Kerala (2022) guidance. The writ petition is allowed, directing consideration of Ext. P3 within one month and, if Form A is allowed, reassessment and reclassification of land as purayidam/dry land.
This is a Division Bench suo motu petition under DBP No.21 of 2021 in the Kerala High Court concerning entry of Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee members and other devotees into the Nalambalam of Guruvayur Sree Krishna Temple for Vishukanni darshan on 14.04.2021, during Covid-19 restrictions imposed by Decision No.2 (12.04.2021). The Court examines affidavits from the Administrator (then and now), the Deputy Administrator (Temple), security personnel, and other respondents, and scrutinises the Guruvayur Devaswom Act, 1978 and Guruvayur Devaswom Rules, 1980. It reiterates that the Devaswom Managing Committee is a trustee obliged to administer the temple properties in accordance with the Act, that the Thantri has final religious authority subject to law, and that restrictions on entry must be obeyed by all, including Committee members and officers. The judgment emphasizes the rights of worshippers to worship in a manner consistent with temple practice, while cautioning against privileging a class of worshippers or using Nadapanthal to permit vehicle entry. It concludes with strong criticism of the Managing Committee for failing to act consistently with statutory duties and issues directions to enforce restrictions and address governance issues.
This writ petition challenges Ext.P24 order of the Banking Ombudsman (BO) dismissing Ext.P23 complaint filed by Krizzle Bath and Wellness Private Limited and its managing director against Standard Chartered Bank. The petitioners allege non-compliance with RBI circulars/notifications (notably Ext.P5, Ext.P7) related to COVID-19 relief, restructuring of loans for accounts classified as standard as of 01-03-2020, moratorium provisions, and incentives under GECL/MSME schemes. They contend that the bank, while continuing EMI payments and availing moratoriums, failed to grant restructuring by 31-03-2021 and arbitrarily classified the account as NPA on 01-01-2021, triggering a SARFAESI 13(2) notice (Ext.P18). They rely on RBI guidelines to demand two-year extension of the residual tenor and moratorium on principal and interest, arguing these are binding under RBI directives and must be deemed applicable in the evolving COVID-era framework. The BOS rejected the complaint as beyond its scope. The petitioners contend BOS jurisdiction under Clause 8(2)(d) and 8(2)(f) of the Banking Ombudsman Scheme, 2006. The court, noting RBI guidelines have statutory flavour and that remedy under SARFAESI Act exists, ultimately holds that the writ petition is not a proper forum to challenge such actions and dismisses the petition. The interim deposit in a no-lien account is addressed by adjusting it against the loan liability upon further orders.
This is a regular bail application under Section 439 CrPC by the first accused in Crime No.625 of 2022 of Kadakkavoor Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, in which accused Nos. 1 to 4 are alleged to have committed offences under Section 22(c) NDPS Act, involving a commercial quantity of contraband. The prosecution alleges that at about 11:45 hours on 28 September 2022, 320 grams of MDMA were recovered on the two-wheeler the accused were riding and from their persons. The petitioner contends that two major anomalies in the recovery render the evidence suspect: first, body search without a Gazetted Officer, contrary to Section 50 NDPS Act; second, samples were not collected in strict accordance with law. The Public Prosecutor counters that the case diary and recovery mahazar establish compliance with the relevant provisions. On perusal, the court notes that the search occurred in the presence of a Tahasildar, suggesting prima facie compliance with Section 50, and the sampling appears to have been conducted in accordance with law, making the two objections unconvincing. The court also considers the accused’s criminal antecedents, enumerating fourteen prior offences. It then explains the clear rider in Section 37 of the NDPS Act for cases involving commercial quantities, requiring two conjunctive grounds: reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and that he will not commit any offence while on bail, especially when the Public Prosecutor opposes bail. Relying on Kesari and related authorities, the court concludes that the prosecution has not established these grounds beyond a reasonable doubt and denies bail. Accordingly, the bail application is dismissed.
This writ petition concerns membership and electoral rights in KSHEERA VYAVASAYA COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD (Meenkara, Palakkad). Petitioners, five milk suppliers residing within the society’s area, sought enrollment as members after their applications were pending with the managing committee. The committee was superseded, and a Part Time Administrator was appointed in 2017. The petitioners’ applications were re-processed under the Part Time Administrator, who granted membership following orders issued by the Deputy Director/Joint Registrar (Exts. P4–P6). Thereafter, an election to the society’s Managing Committee was notified (5-9-2022). Although petitioners appeared in the draft voters list, their names were omitted from the final voters list, with the sole stated reason being the Part Time Administrator’s earlier membership grant. The petition sought quashing Ext. P10 (the Electoral Officer’s communication), inclusion of petitioners in the final voters list per Exts. P4–P6, and related reliefs. Counsel for petitioners argued that enrollment by the Part Time Administrator is illegal since the Administrator is not empowered to enroll new members; relied on Section 16(2A) and Rule 35A(4) and Section 20A embargo for shortly prior voters. Respondents defended the position that enrollment was improper and that the Registrar’s role under Section 16(2A) is limited to determining eligibility, not mandating enrollment by the Part Time Administrator. The Court ultimately held that the petition fails and dismissed the writ petition.
This writ petition challenges the decision of the ERCMPU to fill five posts of Technical Superintendent (Engineering) by downgrading higher posts and by using a mix of direct recruitment, transfer, and promotion, rather than strictly following the initial five Direct Recruitment vacancies announced by Ext. P1. Ext. P2 produced a rank list in 2021, wherein the petitioners ranked 8th and 10th. The Rules governing ERCMPU prescribe three modes of filling the post: Direct Recruitment, Promotion by Selection, and Transfer Appointment, with a 1:1:1 ratio. After the rank list expired, vacancies arose due to retirement and resignation; some vacancies were filled via Promotion by Selection and Transfer Recruitment as per Rules, and five additional posts were created by the Board in 2022 by downgrading higher posts to the entry-level post of Assistant Engineer to utilize the existing staff. Three of the downgraded vacancies were filled from the Ext. P2 list; two remain to be filled by Transfer Recruitment and Promotion by Selection, according to the Rules. The petition argues that downgrading and alternative modes undermine the direct recruitment corridor and contravene the Rules. The court cites Kesavankutty Nair and Unnikrishnan Nair G.S. to hold that rank lists do not confer indefeasible rights, and notes Milma Officers on maintainability under Article 226. Ultimately, the court dismisses the petition, finding no statutory violation and that the Board’s actions were in accordance with the Recruitment Rules.
CON.CASE(C) NO. 592 OF 2020 This Contempt of Court case (Civil) No. 592 of 2020 before the Kerala High Court arises from petitioners alleging willful disobedience of directions in the High Court's judgment dated 25 February 2019 in WP(C) No. 2447/2017, which itself followed the 2018 judgment in WP(C) No. 13120/2015 and connected matters. The petitioners, 17 individuals associated with SAIL SCL Kerala Limited (various petitioners named in the record), filed under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, contending that the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) and related authorities failed to implement pension-related directions, including post-amendment provisions introduced by G.S.R. 609(E) (2014). The Supreme Court’s detailed judgment dated 04 November 2022 in Civil Appeals Nos. 8143-44 of 2022 (AIR 2022 SC 5634) held that the 2014 amendment is legal and valid and laid down directions on transfer of funds and options under the pension scheme. It also clarified issues around read-down of the scheme and extended rights to employees who did not exercise options earlier. Following this, the Kerala High Court directs EPFO to reconsider the petitioners’ entitlement to higher pension in accordance with the apex court’s ruling. The contempt petition is closed, with liberty to challenge reconsideration in light of the 2022 decision; the order suspending part of the earlier directive on additional contributions is clarified.
The Kerala High Court hears CRL.A No. 1855 of 2011 challenging a trial court acquittal in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complainant-kpar, Vimal Kumar, alleged that he lent Rs 1,50,000 to the accused on 1-10-2007 and that the accused issued Ext. P1 a cheque dated 8-10-2007, which was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds. A statutory notice was sent (Ext. P4); the accused did not pay. The Judicial First Class Magistrate Kayamkulam acquitted the accused, holding the complainant failed to establish a case beyond reasonable doubt and not relying on Section 139 presumptions. The appellant contends that the cheque carries statutory presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 NI Act and that the reverse onus shifts to the accused, who offered no probable Defence; the absence of a reply to the notice and the execution sign on Ext. P1 strengthen the case for conviction. The High Court recalls Rupesh Manger (Thapa) v. State of Sikkim (SC) and Kalamani Tex v. Balasubramanian to reiterate that an appellate court reverses an acquittal only when perversity is evident, and re-appraises the materials. The court finds the trial court’s conclusions perverse, sets aside the acquittal, convicts the accused under Section 138 NI Act, and imposes a one-day imprisonment with fine, directing compensation to the complainant and legal-transfer of the fine proceeds. Amicus Curiae contribution acknowledged.
The petitioner, Anitha Varghese, seeks a declaration that the appointment of the 5th and 6th respondents as permanent Anganwadi workers in Kadapra Panchayat is illegal and an order to re-engage the petitioner on a contract basis until a proper selection procedure for Anganwadi posts is in place. The short facts reveal that although a 2016 decision to appoint permanent Anganwadi workers was made, the process stalled and the published rank list contained ineligible names, prompting cancellation by the Panchayat. During 2016–2023 the petitioner worked as a temporary Anganwadi worker. In 2023, following a Circular by the Directorate of Women and Child Development to finalize the rank list, the 4th respondent allegedly selected the 5th and 6th respondents on 13.02.2023; the petitioner points to Ext.P4 (Attendance) and Ext.R5(a) to show the appointments were improper. The petitioner relies on Ext.P7, a single-judge judgment, which held that if Anganwadi posts are not filled per government rules, retired employees may be engaged on a contract basis. The respondents dispute this, arguing the 4th respondent’s appointment was legal under Ext.P3 GO and that reservation criteria were satisfied. The court examines Sec.166(2) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, and the Third Schedule (Category C, Social Welfare, including Anganwadis), noting the Village Panchayat’s exclusive power to administer these matters subject to government assistance. It holds Ext.P4 beyond permissible government authority and distinguishes the petitioner’s arguments. The court ultimately quashes the 5th and 6th respondents’ permanent appointments and directs the 3rd respondent to consider re-engaging the petitioner on a contract basis, consistent with Ext.P7 and due process, while preserving Panchayat autonomy under the Act. The judgment underscores the independence of Panchayat institutions and their statutory domain in administering Anganwadis.
The petition challenges a Maintenance Tribunal order that cancelled two settlement deeds (Exhibits P4 and P5) executed by the first respondent in favour of the petitioner under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The Tribunal cancelled the deeds on the ground that Section 23 permits cancellation when a basic amenities obligation is not expressly stated in the transfer document. The petitioner contends that Subhashini v. District Collector and Sudesh Chhikara v. Ramti Devi and another establish that Section 23(1) requires such a condition to be expressly stated in the document for the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to cancel; hence the order cannot stand. While the petition was pending, the parties arrived at a settlement, signed with counsel, and terms were placed before the Court (Exhibits P4–P8). On 10.10.2023, after hearing both sides, the Court modified key terms: monthly maintenance increased to Rs.40,000; the first respondent’s wife Subaida is to be maintained till her death; a lump-sum of Rs.7,20,000 is payable if maintenance is not satisfied; the petitioner shall refrain from creating conveyances without consent; the first respondent may reside in the house; the modified agreement (dated 24.11.2021) is to form part of the judgment. Non-compliance may be enforced under Section 11 of the Act. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
This transfer petition under Sec. 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure concerns Ashma, wife of Deepak T.R., and their daughter Akshitha Deepak, seeking to transfer OP 1800/2021 from the Family Court, Ernakulam, to the Family Court, Attingal. The petition outlines the matrimonial background: the first petitioner is the wife; the second petitioner is the minor daughter; the respondent had previously filed O.P.1612/2017 for divorce before the Family Court, Ernakulam, and that matter had been addressed by prior transfer orders. Annexures III and VI, respectively O.P. 1536/2021 and O.P. 427/2022, are already pending before the Family Court, Attingal, and the petitioners seek consolidation with Annexure I (OP 1800/2021) to be heard together. The petition argues that consolidation before a single bench would save judicial time and avoid conflicting judgments, given the respondent contests Annexures III and VI. The petition cites several Supreme Court/Kerala HC decisions emphasizing that the convenience of the woman and child governs transfer of matrimonial proceedings (Sumitha Sing v. Kumar Sanjay; Mona Aresh Goel v. Aresh Satya Goel; Vaishali Shridhar Jagtap v. Shridhar Vishwanath Jagtap; Santhini v. Vijaya Venkatesh; N.C.V Aishwarya v. A.S Saravana Karthik Sha). In light of these authorities and the totality of circumstances, the court exercised its discretion under Sec. 24 CPC and allowed the transfer, directing consolidation and transmission of records to Attingal for joint trial.
