Rinta Susan Thomas Vs Cherry Varghese Cherian

1

TR.P.(C) NO.57 OF 2025

¶3

2025:KER:23923

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

¶7

THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 29TH PHALGUNA, 1946

¶8

TR.P.(C) NO.57OF 2025

¶9

(AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP NO.585 OF 2024
OF FAMILY COURT, THIRUVALLA)

¶10

PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:

¶11

RINTA SUSAN THOMAS, AGED 30 YEARS, D/O. P.M THOMAS,
NJALLANATTU, PUTHUPALLY MALIYIL HOUSE, S.H.MOUNT P.O.,
PERUMBAIKKADU VILLAGE, NATTASSERY S H MOUNT KOTTAYAM,
PIN -686 606, NOW RESIDING AT HOSTEL OF RAJAGIRI COLLEGE OF
SOCIAL SCIENCES, KAKKANAD, RAJAGIRI VALLEY, PIN – 682 039

¶12

BY ADVS.
T.M.RAMAN KARTHA
MANJULA NAIR
KEERTHI.S.NAIR
REVATHY M.A.

¶13

RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:

¶14

CHERRY VARGHESE CHERIAN, S/O. CHERIAN
POLICHIRACKALTHENMADATHIL HOUSE, BEHIND PWD HOUSE,
THIRUVALLA P.O, PATHANAMTHITTA-689 101
(WORKING AS FACT ENGINEER/ASSISTANT MNAGAER, INSPECTION/FEW,
FACT ENGINEERING WORKS, PALLURUTHY, KOCHI), PIN – 689 101

¶15

BY ADVS.
JACOB P. ALEX
JOSEPH P.ALEX(K/1-C/2002)
MANU SANKAR P.(K/000823/2018)
AMAL AMIR ALI(K/000773/2019)

¶16

THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
21.1.2025, THE COURT ON 20.03.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

2

¶18

TR.P.(C) NO.57 OF 2025

¶19

2025:KER:23923

¶20

ORDER

¶21

(Dated: 20^th March, 2025)

¶22

The petitioner is the wife, and the respondent herein is the

¶23

husband. The petitioner seeks the transfer of O.P. No.585 of 2024

¶24

pending before the Family Court, Thiruvalla, to the Family Court, Ernakulam.

¶25

The marriage between the petitioner and the

¶26

respondent was solemnized on 04.06.2023 as per the rituals and practices followed by the Christian Community. The petitioner is currently pursuing her Master’s in Business Administration (MBA)

¶27

from Rajagiri College of Social Sciences, Ernakulam, and is now residing in Ernakulam. The respondent herein is a FACT Engineer

¶28

who works at Palluruthy, Kochi. The parents of the petitioner are

¶29

aged and there is no one to accompany the petitioner for

¶30

conducting the original petition pending before the Family Court,

¶31

3

¶32

TR.P.(C) NO.57 OF 2025

¶33

2025:KER:23923 Thiruvalla. Therefore, the petitioner seeks transfer of O.P. No.585

¶34

of 2024 pending before the Family Court, Thiruvalla, to the Family

¶35

Court, Ernakulam.

¶36

The respondent filed a counter affidavit to the transfer

¶37

petition, wherein it is stated that the permanent residence of the petitioner/wife is at Kottayam, which is very near to Family Court, Thiruvalla, and the said fact is evident from Ext.P1. Hence, the application for transfer of O.P.No.585 of 2024 of the Family court, Thiruvalla, is made without any bonafides and the same is nothing

¶38

but an attempt to delay and further protract the legal proceedings. The respondent also submits that the averments in

¶39

para 5 are misleading, hence denied. The respondent is permanently residing within the jurisdiction of Family Court, Thiruvalla, and only for employment purposes he is travelling to Ernakulam, and the Family Court, Thiruvalla, is more convenient

¶40

4

¶41

TR.P.(C) NO.57 OF 2025

¶42

2025:KER:23923

¶43

to the respondent as his aged parents and relatives are residing

¶44

there. Therefore, prays for dismissal of the transfer petition.

¶45

Though the permanent residence of the petitioner is in

¶46

Thiruvalla, both the petitioner as well as the respondent are working within the jurisdiction of the Family Court, Ernakulam. Moreover, since both the original petitions are filed for divorce, it is to be tried by a single court, for avoiding conflicting judgments and in the interest of justice. Thus, these aspects are in favour of allowing the present transfer petition.

¶47

However, the law in respect of transfer of proceedings, particularly in matrimonial disputes, is no longer res-integra , in view of the categoric declaration of law by the Hon'ble Supreme

¶48

Court in Sumitha Singh v. Kumar Sanjay and another [(2001)10 SCC 41)], Mona Aresh Goel v. Aresh Satya Goel [(2000) 9 SCC 255],

¶49

Vaishali Shridhar Jagtap v. Shridhar Vishwanath Jagtap [AIR 2016

¶50

5

¶51

TR.P.(C) NO.57 OF 2025

¶52

2025:KER:23923 SC 3584] and Santhi ni v. Vijaya Venkatesh [2017 (4) KLT 415

¶53

(SC)]; wherein it is held that, it is the convenience of the woman

¶54

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

¶55

deciding a petition for transfer and in such cases, a transfer has been effected.

¶56

Thus, considering the convenience of both the parties

¶57

as well as to avoid conflicting judgments, and in view of the law

¶58

laid down by the Hon' ble Supreme Court in the afore-cited decisions, I am inclined to allow this transfer petition.

¶59

In the result, Tr.P.C.No.57 of 2025 is allowed, withdrawing O.P. No.585 of 2024 pending before the Family Court, Thiruvalla,

¶60

and transferring it to the Family Court, Ernakulam. The Family Court, Thiruvalla, shall transfer the records to the Family Court,

¶61

6

¶62

TR.P.(C) NO.57 OF 2025

¶63

2025:KER:23923 Ernakulam, immediately. The parties are directed to appear

¶64

before the Family Court, Ernakulam, on 30.04.2025.

¶65

Sd/- BASANT BALAJI, JUDGE

¶66

ss

¶67

7

¶68

TR.P.(C) NO.57 OF 2025

¶69

2025:KER:23923

¶70

APPENDIX OF TR.P(C) 57/2025

¶71

`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`
`Exhibit P1`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE OP 1810/2024 FILED BY THE` `PETITIONER BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM`
`Exhibit P2`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF SUMMONS ISSUED TO THE` `PETITIONER IN OP NO. 585/2024`
`Exhibit P3`	`TRUE COPIES OF THE COLLEGE IDENTITY CARD OF THE` `PETITIONER`
`Exhibit P4(a)`	`TRUE COPIES OF THE FEE RECEIPTS ISSUED TO THE` `PETITIONER`
`Exhibit P4(b)`	`TRUE COPY OF THE FEE RECEIPT ISSUED BY RAJAGIRI` `COLLEGE OF SOCIAL SCIENCE TO THE PETITIONER.`
`RESPONDENT ANNEXURES`
`Annexure R1(a)`	`True copy of the OP(Div) No. 585/2024 pending` `before the Family Court, Thiruvalla`

Rinta Susan Thomas v. Cherry Varghese Cherian

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rinta Susan Thomas v. Cherry Varghese Cherian

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

Vijayakumar M Vs Sathidevi A.L

Sreejesh Unni Adikal Vs Parameswaran Adikal

Bindhu Babu Vs Claudio Colangelo

P.a.Mathew Tharakan Vs Mathai

Jose Antony Vs Job Antony

Iswarya S Dhanesh Vs Vishnu Sasidharan S