Allowed¶34

Dr.Niranjana v. Anand Raj P R

Kerala HC6 Mar 2025Tr.P(C)/831/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Kerala HC Ernakulam; TR.P.(C) 831/2024; 2025:KER:19034; Basant Balaji; transfer of matrimonial proceedings; wife's convenience; O.P.Nos.2145, 2202 & 2449 of 2024 Family Court Thiruvananthapuram transferred to Family Court Chavara; counterblast to M.C.No.129 of 2024 JFCM Karunagapally; eviction 21.9.2024; 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 absent; petition allowed 06.03.2025.

What did the court decide?

O.P.Nos.2145, 2202 & 2449 of 2024 withdrawn from the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram and transferred to the Family Court, Chavara; the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram directed to transfer the records immediately, and the Family Court, Chavara to issue notice for appearance of the parties upon receipt of the records. ¶34

Dr.Niranjana Vs Anand Raj P R — Kerala HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether O.P.Nos.2145, 2202 & 2449 of 2024 pending before the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram should be transferred to the Family Court, Chavara, in view of the inconvenience to the petitioner-wife.

¶25

Court's answer

Applying the settled Supreme Court principle relied upon in Sumitha Singh, Mona Aresh Goel, Vaishali Shridhar Jagtap and Santhini that the convenience of the woman and children governs transfer of matrimonial proceedings, and on the uncontroverted averments in the transfer petition showing substantial inconvenience to the petitioner, the Court was inclined to allow the transfer petition.

¶33

Ratio / Principle

Tr.P.C.No.831 of 2024 is allowed: O.P.Nos.2145, 2202 & 2449 of 2024 are withdrawn from the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram and transferred to the Family Court, Chavara.

¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Transfer Petition (Civil) – wife's convenience governs. Petitioner-wife, residing at Oachira within the jurisdiction of the Family Court, Chavara, sought transfer of O.P.Nos.2145, 2202 & 2449 of 2024 filed by the husband-respondent before the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram (more than 100 km away) as a counterblast to her M.C.No.129 of 2024 before the JFCM, Karunagapally, following alleged abuse and her forcible eviction on 21.9.2024. Notice to the respondent went unheeded. 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)], and on the uncontroverted averments of inconvenience, BASANT BALAJI, J. allowed Tr.P.C.No.831 of 2024, withdrawing the three O.P.s from the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram and transferring them to the Family Court, Chavara, with directions for immediate transfer of records and issuance of notice to the parties.

¶1

¶2

TR.P.(C) NO.831 OF 2024

¶3

2025:KER:19034

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

¶7

THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 15TH PHALGUNA, 1946

¶8

TR.P.(C) NO.831 OF 2024

¶9

(AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP NO.2449 OF 2024
OF FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM)

¶10

PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:

¶11

DR.NIRANJANA, AGED 31 YEARS,
D/O CHANDRASENAN, METOOR, PAYIKKUZHI MURI,
OACHIRA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPALLY TALUK, KOLLAM, PIN – 690 526

¶12

BY ADVS.
SAYUJYA RADHAKRISHNAN
K.R.RAJEEV KRISHNAN

¶13

RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:

¶14

ANAND RAJ P. R, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O RAJENDRAN,
RAJENDRA SADANAM, KALLIYOOR P.O., KAKKAMOOLA MURI,
LALLIYOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695 042

¶15

THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
6.1.2025, THE COURT ON 06.03.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

TR.P.(C) NO.831 OF 2024

¶18

2025:KER:19034

¶19

ORDER (Dated: 5^th March, 2025)

¶20

The petitioner is the wife of the respondent/husband. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 07.05.2017 and two male children were born in the wedlock. The petitioner faced repeated instances of physical and mental abuse. On 21.9.2024, she was forcibly evicted from the matrimonial home and compelled to take shelter at her parental home. Due to physical assault, the petitioner filed M.C.No.129 of 2024 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Karunagapally. As a counterblast, the respondent filed O.P.Nos.2145, 2202 & 2449 of 2024 before the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram.

¶21

The petitioner and her children are residing with her parents. She is unable to travel to the Family Court,

¶22

¶23

TR.P.(C) NO.831 OF 2024

¶24

2025:KER:19034

¶25

Thiruvananthapuram, as she does not have income for that also. The petitioner resides in Oachira, which falls under the jurisdiction of the Chavara Family Court. Since the cases filed by the respondent are in Thiruvananthapuram, which is more than 100 kilometers away, it causes substantial inconvenience to the petitioner, who is forced to travel long distances to attend hearings, whereas the family court, Chavara, is near to her residence. Hence, she seeks transfer of the cases pending before the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram, to the Family Court, Chavara.

¶26

Though notice was issued to the respondent, none appeared.

¶27

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

¶28

¶29

TR.P.(C) NO.831 OF 2024

¶30

2025:KER:19034

¶31

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

¶32

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.

¶33

Thus, in the light of the uncontroverted averments in the memorandum of transfer petition, taking note of 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.

¶34

In the result, Tr.P.C.No.831 of 2024 is allowed, withdrawing O.P.Nos.2145, 2202 & 2449 of 2024 pending before the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram, and transferring it to the Family Court, Chavara.

¶35

The Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram, shall transfer the records to

¶36

¶37

TR.P.(C) NO.831 OF 2024

¶38

2025:KER:19034

¶39

the Family Court, Chavara, immediately. Upon receipt of the records,

¶40

the Family Court, Chavara, shall issue notice for the appearance of the

¶41

parties.

¶42

Sd/- BASANT BALAJI,

JUDGE

TR.P.(C) NO.831 OF 2024

¶47

2025:KER:19034

¶48

APPENDIX OF TR.P(C)831/2024

¶49

PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure.A1 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF INTERIM ORDER DT.04.12.2024 IN
TR.P(C) NO.789 OF 2024 PASSED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT
Annexure.A2 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF NOTICE DT.04.12.2024 IN O.P
NO.2449 OF 2024 BEFORE THE HON’BLE FAMILY COURT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

Dr.Niranjana v. Anand Raj P R

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.Niranjana v. Anand Raj P R

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

P.V. Sreekumar, Vs Mini. R

V.S Sreekumar. Vs Mini. R

Noufal Vs Soman

Shoukiya Vs Abu Thahir

Shoukiya Vs Abu Thahir

M/S Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co. Ltd. Vs Unnikrishnan P.M