Muhsina K. M v. Salih .P.S

Kerala HC21 Mar 2025Tr.P(C)/823/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Kerala HC, Ernakulam (Basant Balaji J., 21-03-2025), TR.P(C) 823/2024 re GOP 1828/2024 Family Court Thrissur: allowed on wife's-convenience ground; GOP transferred to Family Court Ottappalam to run alongside wife's pending O.P.1091/2024 (gold ornaments); relies 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); respondent did not appear despite notice.

What did the court decide?

Transfer petition allowed; G.O.P.No.1828 of 2024 withdrawn from the Family Court, Thrissur to the Family Court, Ottappalam, to be tried along with O.P.No.1091 of 2024, with immediate transfer of records and issuance of notice by the transferee court. ¶¶46

Muhsina K. M Vs Salih .P.S — Kerala HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶46

Issue for consideration

Whether G.O.P.No.1828 of 2024 pending before the Family Court, Thrissur should be transferred to the Family Court, Ottappalam, having regard to the convenience of the 1st petitioner (wife) and the pendency there of her O.P.No.1091 of 2024, so that both cases can be tried together.

¶¶35

Court's answer

In deciding a petition for transfer of proceedings in a matrimonial dispute, the convenience of the wife has to be looked into, in accordance with the categoric declaration of law by the Supreme Court in the decisions relied upon (Sumitha Singh; Mona Aresh Goel; Vaishali Shridhar Jagtap; Santhini).

¶¶42

Ratio / Principle

The transfer petition is allowed: G.O.P.No.1828 of 2024 is withdrawn from the Family Court, Thrissur to the Family Court, Ottappalam, to be tried along with O.P.No.1091 of 2024.

¶¶46

Key takeaways

The Family Court, Thrissur shall transfer the records to the Family Court, Ottappalam immediately; upon receipt of the records, the Family Court, Ottappalam shall issue notice to the parties and dispose of the case in accordance with law.ratio¶¶46

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

TR.P(C) No. 823 of 2024 (relating to G.O.P. No. 1828 of 2024 of Family Court, Thrissur) | High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam | Neutral ID 2025:KER:28147 | Decided 21 March 2025 | Single-judge coram: Justice Basant Balaji (author). The first petitioner (wife, Muhsina K.M) and her family sought transfer of G.O.P.No.1828 of 2024 - filed by the respondent/husband Salih P.S against the wife and her family members - from the Family Court, Thrissur to the Family Court, Ottappalam, on the grounds that the Ottappalam court is close to her residence and her O.P.No.1091 of 2024 (seeking return of gold ornaments) was pending there; marriage on 08.08.2010 per Islamic customs, two children. Relying on Sumitha Singh v. Kumar Sanjay ((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 (4) KLT 415 (SC)), the court held that the wife's convenience governs transfer of matrimonial proceedings. With the respondent absent despite notice and the averments uncontroverted, the transfer petition was allowed: G.O.P.No.1828 of 2024 withdrawn to the Family Court, Ottappalam to be tried along with O.P.No.1091 of 2024; records to be transferred immediately and notice to issue on receipt.

TR PC 823/24

2025:KER:28147

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.823OF 2024

¶9

GOP NO.1828 OF 2024 OF FAMILY COURT,THRISSUR

¶10

PETITIONER/S:

¶11

1 MUHSINA K. M, AGED 30 YEARS, W/O SALIH. P.S, C/O KALURAKKAL HOUSE, POOLAKUNDU DESOM, POST OTTAPALAM, OTTAPALAM VILLAGE,OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT., PIN - 679101

¶12

2 MOIDUKUTTY.K,AGED 60 YEARS, KALURAKKAL HOUSE, POOLAKUNDU DESOM, POST OTTAPALAM, OTTAPALAM VILLAGE,OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT., PIN - 679101

¶13

3 SAFIYA,AGED 58 YEARS, W/O MOIDUKUTTY.K, KALURAKKAL HOUSE, POOLAKUNDU DESOM, POST OTTAPALAM, OTTAPALAM VILLAGE,OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT., PIN - 679101

¶14

4 MUHIBBU RAHMAN.K.M,AGED 23 YEARS, S/O MOIDUKUTTY.K, KALURAKKAL HOUSE, POOLAKUNDU DESOM, POST OTTAPALAM, OTTAPALAM VILLAGE,OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT., PIN - 679101

¶15

5 RIYAS.K.M ,AGED 34 YEARS, S/O MOIDUKUTTY.K, KALURAKKAL HOUSE, POOLAKUNDU DESOM, POST OTTAPALAM, OTTAPALAM VILLAGE,OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT., PIN - 679101

¶16

BY ADV K.RAVI (PARIYARATH)

¶17

RESPONDENT/S:

¶18

SALIH .P.S, AGED 35 YEARS
, S/O SADHAKHATHULLA,POOKUMADATHIL PUDAVANNGOTTUNHALLIL
HOUSE, VETTIKATTIRI DESOM, NEDUPURA VILLAGE, CHERUTHURUTHY
POST, THALAPPILIY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT., PIN - 679531

¶19

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

TR PC 823/24

2025:KER:28147

ORDER

(Dated this the 21^st day of March 2025)

¶25

The first petitioner is the wife, and the respondent herein

¶26

is the husband. Other petitioners are in-laws of the respondent/husband. The petitioners seek the transfer of G.O.P.No.1828 of 2024, on the file of the Family

¶27

Court,Thrissur to the Family Court, Ottappalam.

¶28

The marriage between the 1^st petitioner and the respondent took place on 08.08.2010 as per lslamic religious customs and practices. Two children are born out of the wedlock. The ill treatment by the respondent led the 1^st petitioner start living separately. The 1^st petitioner preferred O.P.No.l09l of 2024 before the Family Court , Ottapalam,

¶29

seeking return of gold ornaments. While so, the respondent filed G.O.P.No.1828 of 2024, before the Family

¶30

¶31

TR PC 823/24

¶32

2025:KER:28147 Court,Thrissur, against the wife and her family members. The

¶33

1^st petitioner is depending on her parents, who are petitioner

¶34

Nos.2 and 3. It is submitted that the Family Court, Ottappalam

¶35

is too close to her residence, whereas the Family Court, Thrissur is far away and she is not in a position to travel all the way to the Family Court, Thrissur to attend the case. Moreover, the O.P.No.l09l of 2024 filed by her is pending before the Family Court, Ottappalam. Hence, she seeks a transfer of the above G.O.P. to be tried along with the said case.

¶36

Though notice was issued to the respondent, none appears.

¶37

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

¶38

another [(2001)10 SCC 41)], Mona Aresh Goel v. Aresh

TR PC 823/24

2025:KER:28147

Satya Goel [(2000) 9 SCC 255], Vaishali Shridhar Jagtap v. Shridhar Vishwanath Jagtap [AIR 2016 SC 3584] and Santhini v. Vijaya Venkatesh [2017 (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.

¶43

Thus, in the light of the uncontroverted averments in the memorandum of transfer petition and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the afore-cited decisions, and particularly, when O.P.No.l09l of 2024 filed by the petitioner is pending before the Family Court, Ottappalam, I am inclined to allow this transfer petition.

¶44

¶45

TR PC 823/24

¶46

2025:KER:28147 In the result, this Tr.P.C. is allowed, withdrawing G.O.P.No.1828 of 2024, on the file of the Family Court,Thrissur, to the Family Court, Ottappalam, to be tried along with O.P.No.1091 of 2024. The Family Court, Thrissur, shall transfer the records to the Family Court, Ottappalam, immediately and upon receipt of the records, the Family Court, Ottappalam shall issue notice to the parties and dispose of the case in accordance with law.

¶47

Sd/- BASANT BALAJI JUDGE

dl/

TR PC 823/24

2025:KER:28147

APPENDIX OF TR.P(C) 823/2024

¶53

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶54

`Annexure 1`	`TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL PETITION FILED AT THE` `INSTANCE OF THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE FAMILY` `COURT, OTTAPALAM, AS O.P.NO.1091/2024, DATED` `09.12.24.`
`Annexure 2`	`TRUE COPY OF I.A. NO. 2/2024 IN G.O.P. NO.` `1828/2024, ON THE FILE OF THE FAMILY COURT`
	`THRISSUR, PREFERRED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE`
	`RESPONDENT AGAINST THE PETITIONERS, DATED`
	`19.11.24.`

Muhsina K. M v. Salih .P.S

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhsina K. M v. Salih .P.S

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

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