Kerala High Court
Sunanda. M vs Bibin Viswanathan on 5 March, 2025
1
TR.P.(C) NO.669 OF 2024
2025:KER:18643
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI
WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 14TH PHALGUNA, 1946
TR.P.(C) NO.669 OF 2024
(AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP NO.1060 OF 2024
OF FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR)
PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:
SUNANDA. M, AGED 26 YEARS,
D/O MARIMUTHU, GREEN VALLEY, KOLLAYANKADU HOUSE,
CHATHAMANGALAM P.O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678 502
BY ADV P.A.JENZIA
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
BIBIN VISWANATHAN, AGED 30 YEARS,
S/O KASHI VISWANATHAN, SURAJ NIVAS,
GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL ROAD, PARAMELPADI, KONDAZHY P.O,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 679 106
BY ADVS.
K.SHAJ
BEENA N.KARTHA(K/671/1995)
KEVIN JAMES(K/001344/2018)
ARUN CHAND(K/000860/2016)
BHARAT VIJAY P.(K/000976/2018)
MINU VITTORRIA PAULSON(K/739/2020)
ARCHANA P.P.(K/4093/2023)
A.R.JUMANA ZULPHIKER(K/3964/2024)
GOPIKA GOPAL(K/643/2023)
THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
15.10.2024, THE COURT ON 05.03.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
TR.P.(C) NO.669 OF 2024
2025:KER:18643
ORDER
(Dated :5th March, 2025)
The petitioner is the wife of the respondent. O.P.No.1060 of
2024 pending before the Family Court Thrissur is filed by the
respondent, for a declaration that the marriage is null and void.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the marriage between
the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 6.12.2023. They
lived together in the respondent's house. On 24.12.2023, he went
back to his workplace abroad, and the petitioner came back to her
house. While so, the petitioner received a notice from the Family
Court, Thrissur, in O.P.No.1060 of 2024, to appear on 15.10.2024. The
petitioner is residing with her mother at Nenmara and her father is no
more. She is unable to travel to the Family Court, Thrissur, as it is more
than 70 kilometers. She does not have income for that also. The family
TR.P.(C) NO.669 OF 2024
2025:KER:18643
court, Palakkad, is only 18 kilometers away from the residence
whereas she has to catch two buses to reach the Family Court, Thrissur.
Moreover, the petitioner is now working abroad and therefore seeks a
transfer of the case pending before the Family Court, Thrissur, to the
Family Court, Palakkad.
3. A counter affidavit is filed by the power of attorney holder
of the respondent, in which it is stated that the distance between the
Family Court, Thrissur, and the petitioner's residence is only 50
kilometers, and not 70 kilometers. The Family Court, Palakkad is 40
kilometers from the residence of the petitioner. So it is easier to travel
to Thrissur than to the Family Court, Palakkad. Therefore, prays for the
dismissal of the transfer petition.
4. Heard the counsel for the petitioner as well as the
respondent.
5. Admittedly the respondent is not in India and is
TR.P.(C) NO.669 OF 2024
2025:KER:18643
represented by the power of attorney holder. O.P.No.1060 of 2024
pending before the Family Court, Thrissur, is for declaration of the
marriage as null and void. In the counter affidavit filed by the
respondent, it is admitted that the distance between the Family Court,
Thrissur, and the residence of the petitioner is 50 kilometers, whereas
it is only 40 kilometers to the Family Court, Palakkad. It is not the
distance that matter alone but the convenience of the wife that is to
be looked into. The petitioner stated that she had to catch two buses
to reach the Family Court, Thrissur. The respondent who is aged 30
years and living abroad cannot compel the wife who stays at Palakkad
to appear before the Family Court, Thrissur.
6. 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
TR.P.(C) NO.669 OF 2024
2025:KER:18643
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)]; wherein it is 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. The
law is quite categoric, and the wife's convenience has to be looked into
while deciding a petition for transfer.
7. Thus, considering the comparative hardship of the wife
which has to be given due weightage, when compared to that of the
husband as well as the law laid down by the Hon' ble Supreme Court
in the afore-cited decisions, I am inclined to allow this transfer petition.
In the result, Tr.P.C.No.669 of 2024 is allowed, withdrawing
O.P.No.1060 of 2024 is pending before the Family Court, Thrissur, and
transferring it to the Family Court, Palakkad. The Family Court, Thris-
TR.P.(C) NO.669 OF 2024
2025:KER:18643
sur, shall transfer the records to the Family Court, Palakkad, immedi-
ately. The parties are directed to appear before the Family Court, Pa-
lakkad, on 20.04.2025.
Sd/-
BASANT BALAJI,
JUDGE
ss
TR.P.(C) NO.669 OF 2024
2025:KER:18643
APPENDIX OF TR.P(C) 669/2024
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A-1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE IN ORIGINAL PETITION
OP.NO.1060/2024 IN FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR (ALONG
WITH TYPED COPY)
Annexure A-2 TRUE COPY OF THE PRESCRIPTION OF THE DOCTOR,
GINESHMON CHANDY TO THE PETITIONER'S MOTHER DATED
05.09.2024
