Convenience Of Wife Must Be Looked Into While Transferring Proceedings In Matrimonial Disputes: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court recently allowed a Transfer Petition observing 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 in matrimonial cases.

Justice C. S. Dias concluded so after referring to the Apex Court decisions regarding the transfer of matrimonial proceedings. 

In the Transfer Petition, the petitioner- wife submitted that due to matrimonial cruelty meted out to her by the respondent, she along with her minor child was constrained to leave matrimonial home and seek shelter in her parental home.

The petitioner has two petitions before a Family Court seeking an order of maintenance and a decree for post maintenance and has filed a Case under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act before a Judicial First Class Magistrate Court. 

The Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, Advocate V.T Madhavanunni, submitted that as a counterblast for the petitions filed by the petitioner, the respondent has filed a petition in the Family Court, Ottappalam seeking the restoration of conjugal right. it is also pointed out that the respondent is contesting maintenance cases before the Family Court, Kunnur and therefore, no inconvenience would be cased to the respondent if the matter is transferred. The respondent was represented by Advocate P. Jayaram.

The Court retraced the various Apex Court decisions with respect to transfer of proceeding particularly matrimonial disputes, from Sumitha Sing v. Kumar Sanjay and another to the 2017 decision in Santhini v. Vijaya Venkatesh, where the Court 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. 

Therefore,the Court in the light of the Apex Court decisions, and taking into consideration the convenience of the petitioner, allowed the transfer petition, so that the case can be consolidated and jointly tired. 

Case Title: Jincy K v. Vivek M.P

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 420

Click Here To Read/Download The Order