Benson Thomas vs Dr. Lini B Das
2026 Latest Caselaw 458 Ker

Kerala High Court

Benson Thomas vs Dr. Lini B Das on 16 January, 2026

Author: Sathish Ninan

Bench: Sathish Ninan

                                                  2026:KER:3340
             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

             THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN

                                    &

         THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR

  FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 26TH POUSHA, 1947

                      TR.APPEAL(C) NO. 11 OF 2025

 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 14.10.2025 IN Tr.P(C) NO.436 OF

                   2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:

         BENSON THOMAS
         AGED 37 YEARS, S/O K.V THOMAS, KALLUMANNIL HOUSE,
         ALAYAMON P.O, ANCHAL, KOLLAM, PIN - 691306

         BY ADVS.
         SMT.LEKHA SURESH
         SRI.ASHOK SURESH
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:

         DR. LINI B DAS
         AGED 34 YEARS, D/O YESUDASAN, JINI NIVAS,
         THRIKKARUVA VILLAGE, KANJAVELY P.O, KOLLAM,
         PIN - 691602

         BY ADV SHRI.B.MOHANLAL
THIS TRANSFER APPEAL(CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
16.01.2026,     THE    COURT   ON   THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
                                                2026:KER:3340



          SATHISH NINAN & P. KRISHNA KUMAR, JJ.
            = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
                Tr.Appeal (C) No.11 of 2025
            = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
         Dated this the 16th day of January, 2026

                          JUDGMENT

Sathish Ninan, J.

This intra court appeal is against the order of the

learned Single Judge transferring O.P.(Divorce) No.641 of

2023 on the files of the Family Court, Punallur to the

Family Court at Kollam.

2. O.P. (Divorce) No.641 of 2023 was filed by the

husband against the wife, seeking dissolution of marriage.

The wife approached this Court seeking transfer of the

original petition to the Family Court at Kollam. It was

contended that she is a practicing Doctor and is unable to

undertake travel to the Family Court at Punallur on the

posting dates of the case. The Family Court at Punallur is

approximately 50 km away from her place of residence.

2026:KER:3340

3. The learned Single Judge, as per the impugned

order, taking into consideration the convenience of the

wife, ordered the transfer as sought for.

4. We have heard Smt.Lekha Suresh, the learned

counsel for the appellant and Shri.B. Mohanlal, the learned

counsel for the respondent.

5. While it is true that generally in matrimonial

proceedings the place of convenience of the wife is to be

preferred, the facts of the present case impels us to hold

that the transfer as sought is not liable to be granted.

6. The husband had filed the original petition in the

year 2023. The wife entered appearance in the proceedings on

03.07.2023. The 'B' diary, a copy of which has been handed

over to us, reveals that there were approximately 35

postings of the case after the wife entered appearance, and

that she had personally appeared in most of the days.

7. The trial of the original petition had commenced.

2026:KER:3340

PWs 1 to 3 were examined and the petitioner's evidence was

closed. The wife had participated in the proceedings. The

case stands posted for the evidence of the wife. It is at

that stage that she approached this Court in the transfer

petition, seeking transfer of the case.

8. The grounds urged before us to justify the

transfer are two fold; firstly, that she is required to

undertake travel of approximately 50 km to attend the case

at Punallur, whereas the distance to the Family Court at

Kollam is only 13 kms; and secondly, that another proceeding

between the parties is pending before the Family Court at

Kollam as O.P.No.1067 of 2024, which was instituted by the

wife against the husband claiming return of gold and money;

the proceedings are to be jointly tried.

9. As could be noticed, even going by the case of the

wife, the difference in the distances she has to travel to

the Family Courts at Punnallur and Kollam is not much. She 2026:KER:3340

had been appearing in the case since 03.07.2023 and had

marked her personal appearance on most of the occasions

without demur. The trial in the original petition has

commenced. PWs 1 to 3 were examined and the evidence of the

husband is closed. All that remains is the evidence on the

side of the wife. At this stage of the proceedings, we are

unable to appreciate the request of the wife to transfer the

case to the Family Court at Kollam. Incidentally, we do also

notice that the wife had filed an M.C against the husband

before the Family Court at Punalur as M.C.503 of 2023, which

is stated to have been subsequently withdrawn.

10. The original petition by the wife against the

husband seeking return of gold and money was instituted only

in the year 2024. At the present stage of the proceedings, a

joint trial is not practicable.

11. A transfer of the proceeding when it is half way

through the trial, is not proper on the grounds urged.

2026:KER:3340

In the result, this appeal is allowed. The transfer

petition will stand dismissed.

Sd/-

SATHISH NINAN JUDGE

Sd/-

P. KRISHNA KUMAR JUDGE yd 2026:KER:3340

APPENDIX OF TR.APPEAL(C) NO. 11 OF 2025

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE TR. P(C) 436/2025 DATED 26-07-2025.

Annexure A2 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 14.10.2025 IN TRPC 436/2025.