Recently, the Kerala High Court held that transferring a matrimonial case after it has reached the advanced stage of trial is unjustified and improper, setting aside an order that shifted a pending family dispute from the one Family Court to another. The Court emphasised that once proceedings have progressed substantially, transfer requests based merely on inconvenience cannot be entertained, particularly where parties had earlier agreed to cooperate for expeditious disposal of the case.
Brief facts:
The case arose from a matrimonial dispute where the husband sought annulment of a marriage solemnised in 2008 under Hindu rites. The wife contested the proceedings and filed a counterclaim seeking restitution of conjugal rights. During the pendency of the proceedings, disputes also arose regarding the recovery of gold ornaments allegedly kept in a bank locker, leading to interlocutory applications which were dismissed by the Family Court. While these issues were under challenge before the High Court, the parties were referred to mediation and entered into a settlement under which the husband agreed to return the ornaments, and both parties undertook to cooperate for the early disposal of the matrimonial case before the Family Court.
Despite this arrangement and after the case had progressed to the stage of trial with evidence pending, the wife filed a transfer petition seeking to move the case to the another Family Court on the ground that she was practising as an advocate at the previous Court centre and would face inconvenience appearing there as a litigant. The Single Judge allowed the transfer, prompting the husband to file the present intra-court appeal.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The Appellant argued that the transfer petition was filed solely to delay the matrimonial proceedings after the wife had already derived benefits from the mediated settlement. The Counsel submitted that the respondent had actively participated in the proceedings before the previous Family Court, until the matter reached the stage of trial, and therefore her alleged inconvenience was neither new nor genuine. The Appellant further emphasized that the respondent had expressly agreed in the mediated settlement to cooperate with the proceedings before the previous court for expeditious disposal. The Single Judge, it was contended, failed to consider these crucial aspects before ordering the transfer.
Contentions of the Respondent:
On the other hand, the Respondent contended that she was a practising advocate at the previous court centre and regularly appeared before the Family Court there, which caused her discomfort and prejudice when appearing as a litigant. She submitted that she was a resident of Pathanamthitta district and that the present Family Court would be more convenient for her. The Respondent, therefore, maintained that transferring the case would mitigate the practical difficulties she faced in attending proceedings before the previous Family Court.
Observation of the Court:
The Division Bench of Justice Sathish Ninan and Justice P. Krishna Kumar examined the procedural stage of the case and found that the proceedings had already advanced to the trial phase, with only the recording of evidence and final arguments remaining. The Court observed that the respondent had actively participated in the proceedings until that stage and that the inconvenience claimed by her existed much earlier but was never raised during the earlier stages of the case.
Emphasizing the impropriety of transferring proceedings at such a late stage, the Bench stated that “After the proceedings have progressed up to the stage of trial, the transfer of the case to another court is highly unjustified and improper.”
The Court further noted that the husband had undertaken to facilitate the recording of the wife’s evidence through a commissioner, thereby minimizing any necessity for her personal appearance in court. Another crucial factor considered by the Bench was the mediated settlement agreement, under which the wife had explicitly agreed to cooperate with the proceedings before the Family Court, Kollam, for expeditious disposal.
The Court observed that if she had genuine objections to continuing the proceedings before that court, such an undertaking would not have been given. Relying on its earlier decision in Vidhya Mundekkat v. Akhilesh Jayaram, the Court reiterated that matrimonial proceedings cannot be transferred as a matter of routine merely because the wife pleads inconvenience.
The decision of the Court:
In light of the foregoing discussion, the High Court allowed the transfer appeal and set aside the order of the Single Judge that had directed the transfer of the matrimonial proceedings from one Family Court to another. The Court held that once a matrimonial dispute has progressed to an advanced stage of trial, transferring the case to another forum, particularly after the parties had agreed to cooperate for its expeditious disposal, is unwarranted and legally untenable.
Case Title: Binu Das B Vs. Smitha Raj L.
Case No.: Tr. Appeal (C) No.4/2026
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sathish Ninan, Hon’ble Mr.Justice P. Krishna Kumar,
Advocate for the Petitioner: Adv. Johnson Gomez, Adv. Sanjay Johnson, Adv. Sanjith Johnson, Adv. Abin Jacob Mathew, Adv. Deebu R., Adv. Arun Johny
Advocate for the Respondent: None
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source : https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kerala_New_High_Court.jpg