Allowed¶¶43

Mahima M.B v. Shiju

Transfer Petition (Civil) – matrimonial dispute

Kerala HC18 Mar 2025Tr.P(C)/170/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Kerala High Court Ernakulam; TR.P(C) No.170 of 2025; decided 18.03.2025 by Basant Balaji, J.; wife Mahima M.B sought transfer of husband Shiju's divorce O.P.(HMA) No.787 of 2024 from Family Court Punalur to Family Court Attingal where her own O.P.(HMA) No.1367 of 2024 pending; wife's convenience test in matrimonial transfer; relied on Sumitha Singh (2001) 10 SCC 41, Mona Aresh Goel (2000) 9 SCC 255, Vaishali Shridhar Jagtap AIR 2016 SC 3584, Santhini 2017 (4) KLT 415 (SC); no counter filed; transfer allowed; appearance directed on 30.04.2025.

What did the court decide?

Transfer petition allowed; O.P. No.787 of 2024 withdrawn from the Family Court, Punalur and transferred to the Family Court, Attingal; parties directed to appear before the Family Court, Attingal on 30.04.2025. ¶¶43

Mahima M.B Vs Shiju — Kerala HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶43

Issue for consideration

Whether O.P.(HMA) No.787 of 2024 filed by the respondent-husband before the Family Court, Punalur should be transferred to the Family Court, Attingal in view of the petitioner-wife's convenience, particularly since her own divorce O.P.(HMA) No.1367 of 2024 is pending before the Family Court, Attingal.

¶¶36

Court's answer

In matrimonial disputes, the convenience of the woman and children is the governing consideration while ordering transfer of a case from one Court to another; the wife's convenience must be looked into while deciding a transfer petition, and in such cases transfer has been effected.

¶¶41

Ratio / Principle

On the uncontroverted averments in the transfer petition and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cited decisions, the transfer petition is allowed and O.P. No.787 of 2024 is withdrawn from the Family Court, Punalur and transferred to the Family Court, Attingal.

¶¶43

Key takeaways

The Family Court, Punalur shall transfer the records to the Family Court, Attingal immediately; the Family Court, Attingal shall, on receipt of the records, dispose of the case in accordance with law; the parties are directed to appear before the Family Court, Attingal on 30.04.2025.ratio¶¶47-48

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Transfer Petition (Civil) — matrimonial dispute — wife-petitioner sought transfer of husband's divorce O.P.(HMA) No.787 of 2024 from the Family Court, Punalur to the Family Court, Attingal, where her own divorce O.P.(HMA) No.1367 of 2024 is already pending; petitioner pursuing studies, having no income, residing with parents suffering age-related ailments and unaccompanied; respondent appeared but filed no counter; relying on Sumitha Singh v. Kumar Sanjay, Mona Aresh Goel v. Aresh Satya Goel, Vaishali Shridhar Jagtap v. Shridhar Vishwanath Jagtap and Santhini v. Vijaya Venkatesh, held that the convenience of the woman and children is the categoric test in matrimonial transfer petitions and the wife's convenience prevails; petition allowed, case withdrawn from Family Court, Punalur and transferred to Family Court, Attingal; parties to appear on 30.04.2025 (Basant Balaji, J.).

TRPC 170/25

2025:KER:29041

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

¶7

TUESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 27TH PHALGUNA, 1946

¶8

TR.P(C) NO. 170OF 2025

¶9

TO TRANSFER OPHMA NO.787 OF 2024 OF FAMILY COURT, PUNALUR

¶10

PETITIONER/S:

¶11

MAHIMA M.B
AGED 24 YEARS
D/O.MADHU K, RESIDING AT MAHIMA BHAVAN, AVANAVANCHERY P.O,
ATTINGAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695103

¶12

BY ADVS.
S.S.ARAVIND
S.NITHIN (ANCHAL)

¶13

RESPONDENT/S:

¶14

SHIJU,

¶15

AGED 30 YEARS

¶16

S/O.SREENIVASAN CHETTIYAR, RESIDING AT SREEMANGALAMHOUSE,
NETHAJI ROAD,PUNALUR VILLAGE& TALUK , KOLLAM, PIN - 691305

¶17

BY ADVS.
BIJU C ABRAHAM
THOMAS C.ABRAHAM(K/517/2022)
BASIL MATHEW(K/000588/2020)

¶18

THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
18.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

TRPC 170/25

2025:KER:29041

O R D E R

(Dated this the 18^th day of March, 2025)

¶24

The petitioner is the wife, and the respondent herein is

¶25

the husband. The petitioner seeks the transfer of O.P(HMA) No.787 of 2024 on the files of Family Court, Punalur, which is filed by the respondent seeking a decree of divorce, to the

¶26

Family Court, Attingal.

¶27

The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 23.8.2021 as per the rituals

¶28

and practices followed by the Muslim Community.

¶29

It is submitted that the petitioner had preferred O.P.(HMA) No.1367 of 2024 before the Family Court, Attingal for divorce. Thereafter, Tr.P.C.No.43 of 2025

¶30

was filed by the respondent before this court, for transfer of

¶31

the same to the Family Court, Punalur and is pending

consideration.

TRPC 170/25

2025:KER:29041 The petitioner is pursuing her studies and she

¶36

has no income. She is residing with her parents and there is nobody to accompany her as her parents are suffering from age related ailments. Moreover, the O.P. filed by the petitioner is pending before the Family Court, Attingal. Hence, she seeks a transfer of O.P.No.787 of 2024.

¶37

Though appeared, no counter is seen filed by the respondent.

¶38

The law in respect of transfer of proceedings, particularly in matrimonial disputes, is no longer resintegra , in view of the categoric declaration of law by the Hon'ble Supreme 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. Shridhar Vishwanath Jagtap [AIR 2016 SC 3584] and Santhini v. Vijaya Venkatesh [2017

¶39

¶40

TRPC 170/25

¶41

2025:KER:29041 (4) KLT 415 (SC)]; wherein it is held that, it is the convenience of the woman and children that have to be looked into while ordering the transfer of a case from one Court to another. The law is quite categoric, and the wife's convenience has to be looked into while deciding a petition for transfer, and in such cases, a transfer has been effected.

¶42

Thus, in the light of the uncontroverted averments in the memorandum of transfer petition as well as the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the afore-cited decisions and that the O.P. filed by the petitioner is pending before the Family Court, Attingal, I am inclined to allow this transfer petition.

¶43

In the result, this Tr.P.C. is allowed, and O.P. No.787 of 2024 is withdrawn from the Family Court, Punalur, and transferred it to the Family Court, Attingal. The Family Court, Punalur, shall transfer the records to the Family Court,

TRPC 170/25

2025:KER:29041

Attingal, immediately and the Family Court, Attingal, shall

¶48

upon receipt of the records, dispose of the case in accordance with law. The parties are directed to appear before the Family Court, Attingal, on 30.04.2025.

¶49

Sd/-

¶50

BASANT BALAJI, JUDGE

dl/

TRPC 170/25

2025:KER:29041

APPENDIX OF TR.P(C) 170/2025

¶56

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶57

Annexure- 1 TRUE COPY OF OP (HMA) NO.787/2024 FILED BY THE
RESPONDENT BEFORE FAMILY COURT, PUNALUR

Mahima M.B v. Shiju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahima M.B v. Shiju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Roshna Mariam Eapen Vs Jiffin Sam

Dr.Lakshmi Sobhan Vs Jayaprakash

Sunila James Vs the Special Tahsildar

Y. Shajahan Vs Shanavas

Shiju Sreenivasan Vs Mahima A.B

Vellarada Grama Panchayath, Vs Thapasi