Rinimol P.Das vs Gomathi
2023 Latest Caselaw 309 Ker

TR.P(C) NOs. 375&521 OF 2021
                                    1

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
                 THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
 WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 21ST POUSHA, 1944
                        TR.P(C) NO. 521 OF 2021
 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP 1183/2020 OF FAMILY COURT,
                               NEDUMANGAD
PETITIONER/S:

            RINIMOL P.DAS, AGED 47 YEARS
            D/O DEVADAS, PUTHANPURAYIL,
            MADAPPALLY VILLAGE, CHANANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM-686536.

            BY ADV A.K.HARIDAS



RESPONDENT/S:

1 GOMATHI, W/O BALACHANDRAN, PARAMUKALI SAUPARNIKA, KALLARA VILLAGE,NEDUMANGADU TALUK, KALLARA.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695608.

2 PRITICA,AGED 18 D/O SUNIL KUMAR, PUTHANPURAYIL, MADAPPALLY VILLAGE, PERUMPANCHY P.O., CHAGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM 686536

3 LEENA , AGED 48 (FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN), PARAMUKALIL SOUPARNIKAYIL, KALLARA P.O., KALLARA VILLLAGE, THIRUVANATHAPURAM 695608

4 MEGHA , AGED 18 D/O SUNIL KUMAR, PARAMUKALIL SOUPARNIKAYIL, KALLARA P.O., KALLARA VILLLAGE, THIRUVANATHAPURAM 695608

THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.01.2023, ALONG WITH Tr.P(C).375/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: TR.P(C) NOs. 375&521 OF 2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 21ST POUSHA, 1944 TR.P(C) NO. 375 OF 2021 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENTOP 430/2020 OF FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM PETITIONER/S:

GOMATHI AGED 77 YEARS W/O. BALACHANNDRAN, RESIDING AT PARAMUKALI SAUPARNIKA, KALLARA VILLAGE, NEDUMANAGADU TALUK, KALLARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 608

BY ADVS.

R.N.SANDEEP(K/000940/2013)-25021 KEERTHI VIJAYAN

RESPONDENT/S:

    1     RINIMOL P DAS
          AGED 47 YEARS

D/O. DEVADAS, RESIDING AT PUTHANPURAYIL , MAADAPALLY VILLAGE, CHANGANASSERY TALUK, KOTTAYAM-

          686 536

    2     PRITICA,
          AGED 18 YEARS

D/O. LATE SUNILKUMARM RESIDING AT PUTHANPURAYIL , MAADAPALLY VILLAGE, CHANGANASSERY TALUK, KOTTAYAM-

          686 536

    3     LEENA
          AGED 48 YEARS

LOWER, LATE SUNILKUMAR, RESIDING AT PARAMUKALI SAUPARNIKA, KALLA VILLAGE, NEDUMANGADU TALUK, KALLARA P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 608

4 MEKHA TR.P(C) NOs. 375&521 OF 2021

AGED 18 YEARS D/O. LATE SUNILKUMAR, RESIDING AT PARAMUKALI SAUPARNIKA, KALLARA VILLAGE, NEDUMANGADU TALUK, KALLARA P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 608

BY ADV A.K.HARIDAS

THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.01.2023, ALONG WITH Tr.P(C).521/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: TR.P(C) NOs. 375&521 OF 2021

COMMON ORDER

As the transfer petitions are in relation to the

disputes relating to the properties of late Sunilkumar,

they have been disposed of by this common order. The

parties and the pleadings are, for the sake of convenience,

referred to as per the litigate status in Tr.P(C)

No.375/2021, which is treated as the leading case.

2. The petitioner's case in Tr.P(C) No.375/2021 is that

she is the mother of Sunilkumar. The respondents 1 and 2

are the wife and daughter of Sunilkumar. The respondents

3 and 4 are allegedly the second wife and daughter of

Sunilkumar. The respondents 1 and 2 have filed OP

No.430/2020 (Annexure A1) before the Family Court,

Ettumanoor, against the petitioner and the respondents 2

and 3, to declare the respondents 1 and 2 as the legal

heirs of Sunilkumar. The petitioner has filed OP

No.1183/2020 (Annexure A2) before the Family Court,

Nedumangad, against the respondents for a decree of

permanent prohibitory injunction. The petitioner is TR.P(C) NOs. 375&521 OF 2021

residing in Kallara. She is aged 77 years. It would be

difficult for her to travel all the way to Ettumanoor to

contest Annexure A1. Hence, the transfer petition.

3. The 1st respondent has filed Tr.P(C) No.521/2021,

to transfer Annexure A2 from the Family Court,

Nedumangad to the Family Court, Ettumanoor. She has

contended that she and her minor daughter are residing

in Changanacheri. There is no person to chaperone them

from Changanacheri to Nedumangad to contest Annexure

P2. Hence, the transfer petition.

4. Heard; Sri.A.K.Haridas, the learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner in Tr.P(C) No.521/2021 -

respondents 1 and 2 in TR.P(C) No.375/2021 and

Sri.R.N.Sandeep, the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner in Tr.P(C) No.375/2021 -the respondent in

Tr.P(C) No.521/2021.

5. The question is which transfer petition is to be

allowed ?

6. On a consideration of the rival pleadings and TR.P(C) NOs. 375&521 OF 2021

materials on record in the two transfer petitions, it is

evident that the plaint schedule property is situated

within the jurisdiction of the Family Court, Ettumanoor.

The 1st respondent and her daughter, are living in

Changanacheri, and the petitioner and the respondents 3

and 4 are residing in Trivandrum.

7. The law with respect to transfer of proceedings,

particularly matrimonial disputes, is no longer res-

integra, in view of the categoric declaration of law by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sumitha Sing V. Kumar

Sanjay and another [2002 KHC 1889], Mona Aresh

Goel V. Aresh Satya Goel [2000 KHC 1835], Vaishali

Shridhar Jagtap V. Shridhar Vishwanath Jagtap [2016

KHC 6489], Santhini V. Vijaya Venkatesh [2017 (5)

KHC 48] and N.C.V. Aishwarya vs. A.S. Saravana

Karthik Sha [2022 (5) KHC 185]. The Hon'ble Supreme

Court has held that it is the convenience of the woman

and children that has to be looked into, while ordering the

transfer of a case from one Court to another. TR.P(C) NOs. 375&521 OF 2021

8. Going by the law laid down in the afore-cited

decisions and taking note of the fact that all the parties

are ladies, I am of the definite view that it is the

comparative hardship of the wife and child of Sunilkumar

that has to be given due preference and weightage

because of their younger age; and the fact that the

properties are situated within the jurisdiction of the

Family Court, Ettumanoor. Nonetheless, the petitioner

and respondents 3 and 4 would be at liberty to move the

Family Court, Ettumanoor and seek for the dispensation of

their personal appearance, which would do complete

justice to both sides.

In the result, I dispose of the transfer petitions as

follows:

(i) Tr.P(C) No.375/2021 is dismissed.

(ii) Tr.P(C) No.521/2021 is allowed by ordering

withdrawal and transfer of OP No.1183/2020 from

the Family Court, Nedumangad to the Family Court,

Ettumanoor.

TR.P(C) NOs. 375&521 OF 2021

(iii) The parties would be at liberty to move the Family

Court, Ettumanoor and seek for consolidation and

joint trial of all the cases between them.

(iv) The Registry shall forward a copy of this common

order to the Family Court, Nedumangad with

instructions to forthwith transmit the records in

Annexure-A2 to the Family Court, Ettumanoor.

(v) The Family Court, Ettumanoor shall, immediately on

receipt of the records in Annexure-A2, post the case

along with Annexure A1.

(vi) The parties would be at liberty to move the Family

Court, Ettumanoor and seek for the dispensation of

their personal appearance.

Sd/-

C.S.DIAS, JUDGE

rkc/11.01.23 TR.P(C) NOs. 375&521 OF 2021

APPENDIX OF TR.P(C) 375/2021

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

Annexure A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION IN OP NO.430/2020 FILED BY THE 1ST AND 2ND RESPONDENTS BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, ETTUMANOOR

Annexure A2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION IN OP 1183/2020 FILED BY THE 1ST AND 2ND RESPONDENTS BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, NEDUMANGADU TR.P(C) NOs. 375&521 OF 2021

APPENDIX OF TR.P(C) 521/2021

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

Annexure P-1 THE TRUE COPY OF O.P.430/2020 PENDING BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, EATTUMANOOR.

Annexure P-2 THGE TRUE COPY OF O.P.NO.1183/2020 PENDING BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, NEDUMANGADU,.