Kerala High Court
Vinod Samuel vs Teslin Joseph on 19 August, 2025
Author: Murali Purushothaman
Bench: Murali Purushothaman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 28TH SRAVANA, 1947
TR.P(C) NO. 821 OF 2022
FOR TRANSFERRING O.P.NOS.402 OF 2019 AND 441 OF 2019 PENDING
BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA TO FAMILY COURT,
PATHANAMTHITTA
PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:
VINOD SAMUEL
AGED 46 YEARS, S/O ROSAMMA SAMUEL NOW RESIDING AT
APARTMENT NO. 143, LEONA, HONEY PARK, DUNLAOGHAIRE,
CO DUBLIN, IRELAND, PERMANENT ADDRESS AT
THEKKEVILAYIL HOUSE, ANAGADICKAL NORTH P. O.
ANGADICAL VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA
DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER THE POWER OF
ATTORNEY HOLDER ROSAMMA SAMUEL, AGED 72 YEARS, W/O
LATE SAMUEL RESIDING AT THEKKEVILAYIL HOUSE,
ANAGADICKAL NORTH P. O. ANGADICAL VILLAGE, ADOOR
TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - PIN - 691555
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.SHAJ
SMT.BEENA N.KARTHA
SRI.C.IJLAL
SRI.ARUN CHAND
SHRI.VINAYAK G MENON
SHRI.BHARAT VIJAY P.
SHRI.MAJID MUHAMMED K.
SMT.MINU VITTORRIA PAULSON
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
TESLIN JOSEPH
AGED 42 YEARS, D/O K. C. JOSEPH RESIDING AT
KOCHERKKUDIYIL (SRAMBICKAL), AVOLY, P. O.,
AVOLY VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT - PIN - 686670
BY ADV SRI.ALIAS M.CHERIAN
THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
HEARING ON 19.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:62726
TR.P(C) NO. 821 OF 2022
..2..
JUDGMENT
O.P.No.402 of 2019 is filed by the respondent for
dissolution of marriage and O.P No.441 of 2019 is filed against the
petitioner and his parents for return of gold ornaments and money.
The petitioner/husband seeks transfer of O.P. Nos.402 and 441 of
2019 from the files of the Family Court, Muvattupuzha to the Family
Court, Pathanamthitta.
2. The petitioner has filed O.P. (G & W) No. 918 of 2019
before the Family Court, Pathanamthitta for declaring him as the
guardian of the minor wards. The respondent has also filed O.P. (G
& W) No.451 of 2021 before the Family Court, Pathanamthitta
seeking permanent custody of the children.
3. The petitioner states that he is employed in Ireland and
both the cases are contested by his mother, his power of attorney
holder, aged 75 years and she finds it extremely difficult to travel
to the Family Court, Muvattupuzha for the contest of the cases. It is
stated that the two children are residing with the mother of the
petitioner, at Pathanamthitta. Accordingly, the petitioner seeks
transfer of the original petitions pending before the Family Court,
Muvattupuzha to the Family Court, Pathanamthitta.
2025:KER:62726
TR.P(C) NO. 821 OF 2022
..3..
4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent
wherein it is stated that she is presently employed abroad and the
cases before the Family Court, Muvattupuzha as well as the Family
Court, Pathanamthitta are being contested by her father, her power
of attorney, aged 72 years. It is submitted that the personal
appearance of the power of attorney holder in O.P. (G & W) No.451
of 2021 before the Family Court, Muvattupuzha is not insisted or
required. It is contended that the inconvenience of the power of
attorney holder of the petitioner cannot be the criteria for allowing
this transfer petition.
5. Heard Sri.K.Shaj, the learned counsel for the petitioner
and Sri.Alias M Cherian, the learned counsel for the respondent.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decisions in Vaishali
Shridhar Jagtap v. Shridhar Vishwanath Jagtap [2016 (14)
SCC 356], Rajwinder Kaur v. Balwinder Singh [2003 (11) SCC
726], Sumitha Singh v. Kumar Sanjay & Another [2001 (10)
SCC 41] and Mona Aresh Goel v. Aresh Satya Goel [2000 (9)
SCC 255] and the Division Bench of this Court in Rajam Babu v.
Babu K.K [2023 (4) KHC 361] have held that the hardships and
difficulties faced by the wife should be adequately taken note of by
the Courts while dealing with the plea for transfer of cases in
2025:KER:62726
TR.P(C) NO. 821 OF 2022
..4..
matrimonial proceedings. In this case, the transfer is sought on the
ground of inconvenience of the power of attorney holder of the
petitioner husband. According to the petitioner, his mother is aged
75 years and it would be difficult for her to travel to the Family
Court, Muvattupuzha from Pathanamthitta, where she is residing.
7. This Court in Mini Antony v. Savio Aruja [2022 (3)
KHC 42] has held that the convenience of the power attorney
holder of a party cannot be taken as a ground to order transfer of a
proceeding under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Both
the petitioner and the respondent are employed abroad and both of
them are contesting cases through their respective power of
attorney holders. In the light of the law laid down in the above
decisions, it is the convenience of the respondent wife that has to
be given due preference and weightage.
Accordingly, the transfer petition fails and is, dismissed. It
is open to the parties to make the necessary applications before
the respective courts to dispense with their personal appearance,
and the said courts shall consider those applications, in accordance
with law
Sd/-
MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, JUDGE
YKB
2025:KER:62726
TR.P(C) NO. 821 OF 2022
..5..
APPENDIX
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE POWER OF
ATTORNEY AGREEMENT DATED 25/07/2019
BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND HIS MOTHER
SMT. ROSAMMA SAMUEL
Annexure A2 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE O. P. NO.
402/2019 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT,
MUVATUPUZHA FILED BY THE RESPONDENT.
Annexure A3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE O. P. NO. 441/2019
BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, MUVATUPUZHA
FILED BY THE RESPONDENT.
Annexure A4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE O. P. (G & W) NO.
918/2019 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT,
PATHANAMTHITTA FILED BY THE PETITIONER
Annexure A5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE G. O. P. NO.
451/2021 FILED BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT,
PATHANAMTHITTA BY THE RESPONDENT
