Maryann Kunnathuparambil Jose Vs Jos Thomas Pallath

husband. Their marriage was on 28.04.2012, and in the wedlock, they have two children. Due to ill-treatment and domestic violence caused to the petitioner by the respondent, their marital relationship became strained. The petitioner filed M.C. 336/2024 under Section 147 of BNSS, before the Family Court, Palakkad, against the respondent for maintenance of the minor children. In the meanwhile, the respondent filed O.P. 1696 of 2024 before the Family Court, Ernakulam, for divorce.

¶26

The case of the petitioner is that she is a working lady, and the minor children are with her. The younger child, aged 6 years, is suffering from autism. It is submitted

¶27

TR.PC 763/2024

¶28

-3-

¶29

2025:KER:29355

¶30

that the Family Court, Ernakulam, is situated at a distance of

¶31

more than 150 kms away from the residence of the petitioner,

¶32

and being a lady and mother of two minor children, it is difficult for her to travel from Palakkad to Ernakulam to contest the matter, and there is no one to accompany the petitioner to the Family Court, Ernakulam. In such circumstances, she prays

¶33

for a transfer.

¶34

Notice issued from this Court has been served

¶35

on the respondent, and none appeared. Thus, it can be seen

¶36

that the averments in the Transfer Petition stand unchallenged,

¶37

which entitles the petitioner an order from this Court.

¶38

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

¶39

Satya Goel [(2000) 9 SCC 255], Vaishali Shridhar Jagtap v.

TR.PC 763/2024

-4-

2025:KER:29355

Shridhar Vishwanath Jagtap [AIR 2016 SC 3584] and Santhini

¶44

v. Vijaya Venkatesh [2017 (4) KLT 415 (SC)]; wherein it is

¶45

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, transfer has been effected.

¶46

Thus, in the light of the uncontroverted

¶47

averments in the memorandum of Transfer Petition, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and the inconvenience of the petitioner, and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the afore-cited decisions, I am inclined to allow this transfer petition.

¶48

In the result, O.P (Div) No.1696/2024, before the Family Court, Ernakulam, is withdrawn and transferred to the Family Court, Palakkad. The Family Court, Ernakulam, shall

TR.PC 763/2024

-5-

2025:KER:29355

immediately transfer the records to the Family Court, Palakkad. On receipt of the records, the Family Court, Palakkad, shall

¶53

issue notice to the parties and dispose of the case in accordance

¶54

with law.

¶55

Sd/BASANT BALAJI JUDGE

JS

TR.PC 763/2024

-6-

2025:KER:29355

APPENDIX OF TR.P(C) 763/2024

¶61

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶62

Annexure 1 TRUE COPY OF M.C. 336/2024 ON THE FILE OF FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD DATED 23.10.2024 FILED BY THE PETITIONER ON BEHALF OF HER MINOR CHILDREN AGAINST THE RESPONDENT Annexure 2 TRUE COPY OF FORM 8 NOTICE RECEIVED FROM THE FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM DATED 28.09.2024

Maryann Kunnathuparambil Jose v. Jos Thomas Pallath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maryann Kunnathuparambil Jose v. Jos Thomas Pallath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Roy P.Joseph Vs the Power Grid Corporation of India

Rukhiya Vs Mary John

M/S. Vantage E Care Pvt. Ltd. Vs Vipinraj R

Benjamin C Joseph Vs Madhya Kerala Diocese of the Church of South India

Vakkachan Abraham Vs Baiju Kalyani

Vidyalakshmi P.J Vs Abhijith C Raj