Reshma Rani M.R Vs Chandra Bose U.K

¶1

TR.P(C) NO. 642 OF 2024

¶2

1

¶3

2025:KER:24550

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

¶7

FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 30TH PHALGUNA, 1946

¶8

TR.P(C) NO. 642 OF 2024

¶9

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 01.07.2022 IN OPHMA NO.174

¶10

OF 2022 OF FAMILY COURT,KOLLAM

¶11

PETITIONERS:

¶12

1RESHMA RANI M.R
AGED 31 YEARS
D/O. M.S. RAJAPPAN, MAYILADUMPARAYIL HOUSE, SANYASIYODA
P.O., IDUKKI, PIN - 685552

¶13

2M.S. RAJAPPAN
AGED 75 YEARS
S/O SANKARAN, MYLADUMPARAYIL HOUSE, SANNYASIODA P.O.,

¶14

IDUKKI, PIN - 685552

¶15

3RETNAMMA D
AGED 61 YEARS
W/O RAJAPPAN, MYLADUMPARAYIL HOUSE, SANNYASIODA P.O.,
IDUKKI, PIN - 685552

¶16

BY ADVS.
PHILIP T.VARGHESE
THOMAS T.VARGHESE
ACHU SUBHA ABRAHAM
V.T.LITHA
K.R.MONISHA
JIJO PAUL
ANJALI SUNIL

¶17

RESPONDENT:

¶18

CHANDRA BOSE U.K
S/O. UNNIKRISHNAN, AGED 36 YEARS,KAUSTHUBHAM, KP
16/568/A, EKRA–127, KIDANGUVILA, ENIKKARA, KARAKULAM
P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695564

¶19

TR.P(C) NO. 642 OF 2024

¶20

2

¶21

2025:KER:24550

¶22

BY ADV REMA SMRITHI V K

¶23

THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 21.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

TR.P(C) NO. 642 OF 2024

¶25

3

¶26

2025:KER:24550

¶27

ORDER

¶28

Dated this the 21^st day of March, 2025

¶29

The petitioners are the respondents in O.P.(HMA) No. 533 of 2022, pending before the Family Court, Kollam. The respondent is the petitioner therein. The 1^st petitioner is the wife of the respondent. The 2^nd and 3^rd petitioners are the parents of the 1^st petitioner. O.P.(HMA) No. 533 of 2022 was initially filed before the Family Court, Nedumangad, and it was numbered as O.P.(HMA) No. 174 of 2022, Annexure A1. The petition was filed to declare the marriage solemnized on 08.02.2021 as null and void and to get compensation of Rs. 20 lakhs from the respondents therein.

¶30

At the time of filing of Annexure-A1, the petitioners herein were residing in the same address as now shown in the cause title of this transfer petition. Thereafter, petitioners filed Tr.P.(C) No. 195 of 2022 before this Court to transfer O.P.(HMA) No.174 of 2022 pending before the Family Court, Nedumangad, to the Family Court, Kollam, on the ground that they are residing at Kollam.

¶31

Though the notice was served on the respondents,

¶32

TR.P(C) NO. 642 OF 2024

¶33

4

¶34

2025:KER:24550

¶35

there was no opposition to the transfer application. Taking note of the wife's convenience, the transfer petition was allowed, and O.P.(HMA) No.174 of 2022, pending before the Family Court, Nedumangad, was transferred to the Family Court, Kollam.

¶36

The present transfer petition is filed by the petitioners herein on the ground that they have now shifted their residence to Idukki, and it is difficult for them to appear before the Family Court, Kollam, on all postings as the distance between the Family Court, Kollam, and the residence is more than 300 kilometres. Moreover, the 1^st petitioner has filed O.P. No. 587 of 2024 before the Family Court, Kattappana, for the realisation of money against the respondent. The 2^nd and 3^rd petitioners are the senior citizens, and it is just and proper that the case be transferred to Family Court, Kattapana.

¶37

A counter affidavit is filed by the respondent. In the counter affidavit, it is admitted that the marriage between the 1^st petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 08.02.2021 at SNDP Auditorium, Vijayapuram, Idukki. Thereafter, they moved to the respondent's house in Thiruvananthapuram and then to Kollam, where the respondent worked at Coastal Urban Cooperative Bank. At the time of marriage, the 1^st petitioner was

¶38

TR.P(C) NO. 642 OF 2024

¶39

5

¶40

2025:KER:24550 working as a staff nurse at Palakkad, and she resigned from her job and later joined NS Hospital in Kollam. Due to the difference of opinion between the spouses, the respondent moved out of the rented house in Kollam, and the petitioner continued to live there. In such circumstances, the respondent was forced to file O.P. (HMA) No.174 of 2022 before the Family Court, Nedumangad, to declare the marriage as null and void and for compensation.

¶41

Though a transfer petition was filed to transfer the case from Nedumangad to Kollam, the respondent did not oppose it, and thus, it was transferred and renumbered as O.P.(HMA) No. 533 of 2022. The present petition to transfer the case from Family Court, Kollam, to Family Court, Idukki, is only to protract the trial as the case is now at the evidence stage. There is no bona fide in the transfer petition, and it is only to harass the respondent. The transfer cannot be at the whims and fancies of the petitioners.

¶42

O.P.No.587 of 2022, for the return of gold ornaments, was filed long after the filing of O.P.(HMA) No.533 of 2022. The respondent is a permanent employee of a bank in Kollam. His mother is aged and ailing, and no one is at home to take care of her. If the same is transferred, he finds it difficult to travel 200 kilometres from his place of work to the Family Court, Idukki.

¶43

TR.P(C) NO. 642 OF 2024

¶44

6

¶45

2025:KER:24550 Therefore, the respondent prayed that the transfer petition be dismissed.

¶46

Sri. Philip T Varghese, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, argued that it is true that she had approached this Court earlier to transfer the case pending before the Family Court, Nedumangad, to the Family Court, Kollam. At that time, she was working at a hospital in Kollam. Thereafter, she had to leave the job and live with her parents in Idukki without any income. Therefore, it is very difficult for her to travel all the way from Idukki to the Family Court, Kollam, to attend the case. Moreover, the 2^nd and 3^rd petitioners, aged 75 and 61 years, are also made respondents in the original petition by the respondent, and they cannot travel such a long distance. Therefore, prayed that taking into consideration the convenience of the wife as well as parents and taking note of the judgment of the Apex Court in many cases where the Apex Court has held that the paramount consideration in a case of transfer of family matters between the spouses, the convenience of the wife is to be taken into consideration.

¶47

Per contra, Sri. V.K.Remasmrithi, the learned Counsel for the respondent, opposes the transfer application and submits that transferring the case from one Family Court to

¶48

TR.P(C) NO. 642 OF 2024

¶49

7

¶50

2025:KER:24550 another cannot be at her will and pleasure. She had already moved this Court for transfer, while working in Kollam. Now, she is alleging that she is now residing with her parents in Idukki, thus, the transfer sought for cannot be allowed. Moreover, the case is posted for evidence and at that stage, she approached this Court and obtained a stay. O.P. No. 587 of 2024 is for the return of money and other articles and the present petition is to declare the marriage is null and void. So, the allegations that if two cases are pending before two courts, there will be a conflict of decisions is without any substance, as both the causes are entirely different and the same need not be tried together. The learned counsel for the respondent relied on the judgment of the apex court in Anindita Das v. Srijit Das, (2006 KHC 1887), wherein the apex Court held that;

¶51

“in transfer of cases, in matrimonial disputes, each case has to be decided on its merits. Earlier, the stand of the court was that leniency was shown to ladies, but it was found that a large number of transfer petitions were filed by the women taking advantage of the leniency shown. Therefore, it was held that each case's merits must be separately considered when a petition for transfer is being considered”.

¶52

In Vidhya Mundekkat v. Akhilesh Jayaram,

¶53

2021 (6) KHC 506, a Division bench of this Court had an

¶54

TR.P(C) NO. 642 OF 2024

¶55

8

¶56

2025:KER:24550 occasion to consider a similar issue wherein a learned single judge of this Court dismissed a transfer application filed by the wife, and the same was challenged before the division bench under Section 5 of the High Court Act. This Court did a detailed discussion, and taking note of the Electronic Video Linkage Rules for Courts (Kerala), 2021, it was held that it is not an invariable rule that whenever a wife makes a request pointing out her inconvenience to transfer of the case to a Court of her choice is automatic. Each case has to be considered in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Electronic Video Linkage Rules of Kerala have taken care of every possible practical inconvenience during the process of video conference in both the court centres as well as in the remote centres, such as recording of evidence and in camera proceedings or signing of deposition. Therefore, it was held that because of technological advances, the parties of the case need not be physically present before the court, and the evidence can be recorded through video conferencing.

¶57

O.P.No.533 of 2022 is to declare the marriage as null and void. O.P.No.587 of 2024 is for the return of money and other articles. It is true that both the petitions are now

¶58

TR.P(C) NO. 642 OF 2024

¶59

9

¶60

2025:KER:24550 pending before two different courts. In O.P.No.533 of 2022, the petitioners herein are appearing in person before the Family Court Kollam from 29.07.2022 onwards. The Family Court Kollam has posted the case to 08.10.2024 for recording of evidence as per the order dated 23.09.2024.

¶61

The petitioner approached this Court on 03.10.2024 and obtained a stay, which is now being extended and is in force. As mentioned earlier, O.P.No.587 of 2024 is an original petition for the realisation of money and articles; The Electronic Video Linkage Rules for Courts (Kerala), 2021 has already come into effect from 25.08.2021 and taking into consideration O.P.No.533 of 2022 is now posted for evidence, the petitioners need not appear in person before the Family Court, Kollam, for recording the evidence. They can file a petition to allow them to be examined through video conferencing.

¶62

It is at the fag end of the case that such a transfer petition is filed. It is true that the apex Court has held in many decisions that the convenience of the wife is to be given the paramount consideration under Section 24 in matrimonial cases. The 1^st petitioner, while she was in Kollam, had sought transfer of the case from Family Court, Nedumangad, to Kollam, to which

¶63

TR.P(C) NO. 642 OF 2024

¶64

10

¶65

2025:KER:24550

¶66

the respondent did not oppose. Now at the fag end of the trial, the 1^st petitioner wants to transfer the case from the Family Court, Kollam, to the Family Court, Kattappana in Idukki district, on the ground that she is residing in Idukki.

¶67

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the case is now posted for evidence, I am of the considered opinion that the transfer petition sought for is only to be dismissed as the petitioners can very well give evidence through video conferencing, as per the Electronic Video Linkage Rules.

¶68

It is understood that the Family Court, Kollam, has facilities for video conferencing, which the petitioners can avail themselves of. The petitioners can request that the Family Court, Kollam, to allow them to record their evidence through video conferencing under the Electronic Video Linkage Rules. In the result, the transfer petition stands dismissed.

¶69

BASANT BALAJI JUDGE

¶70

saap

¶71

TR.P(C) NO. 642 OF 2024

¶72

11

¶73

2025:KER:24550

¶74

APPENDIX OF TR.P(C) 642/2024

¶75

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶76

Annexure A1TRUE COPY OF PETITION FILED AS O.P (HMA) NO.
174/2022 BY THE RESPONDENT IN THE FAMILY
COURT, NEDUMANGAD DATED 01.02.2022

¶77

Annexure A2TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED AS O.P. NO.
587/2024 DATED 05.08.2024 BY THE 1ST
PETITIONER IN THE FAMILY COURT, KATTAPANA

¶78

Annexure A3TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN TR. P (C) NO 195 OF
2022 DATED 01.07.2022 PASSED BY THE HIGH
COURT OF KERALA

¶79

//true copy//PA to Judge

Reshma Rani M.R v. Chandra Bose U.K

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reshma Rani M.R v. Chandra Bose U.K

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Baiju Francis Vs Mrs. Sasikala

Muralikrishna N Vs Rinodh

Hamna Farhan Vs Ramzan Basheer

M.S Shaji Vs Dr. George Cherian

Abdul Vahab Vs Basheerkutty

Jumaileth Vs Safia Beevi