Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1378 (KER)

Reshma Rani M R v. Chandra Bose U K

2025-05-23

P.KRISHNA KUMAR, SATHISH NINAN

body2025
JUDGMENT : Sathish Ninan, J. This intra-court appeal is against the dismissal of a transfer petition filed by the appellants as petitioners, seeking transfer of O.P.(HMA) No.533 of 2022 pending on the files of the Family Court, Kollam to the Family Court at Kattappana. 2. Petitioners 2 and 3 are the parents of the 1 st petitioner. The O.P.(HMA) is one filed by the husband against the appellants herein namely, the wife, father- in-law and mother-in-law as respondents, for declaration of nullity of the marriage. The original petition was initially filed before the Family Court at Nedumangad as O.P.(HMA) No.174 of 2022. 3. Subsequently, on the reason that the appellants have shifted their residence to Kollam, they filed Tr.P(C) No.195 of 2022 before this Court. As per the order dated 01.07.2022, this Court granted transfer as sought by the appellants. The original petition was transferred and re-numbered before the Family Court Kollam as O.P.(HMA) No.533 of 2022. 4. Thereafter, the 1 st appellants approached this Court in Tr.P.(C) No.642 of 2024, contending that the 1 st appellant has left her job at Kollam and she is now residing at her parental home at Idukki along with appellants 2 and 3, and seeking transfer of O.P.(HMA) No. 533 of 2022 from the Family Court, Kollam to the Family Court at Kattappana. 5. The transfer petition was opposed by the respondent-husband. 6. After considering the rival contentions, the learned Single Judge was pleased to dismiss the transfer petition. 7. We have heard the learned counsel on either side. 8. The learned counsel for the appellants argued that the appellants are presently residing at Idukki. It is the convenience of the wife that is to be primarily considered by the Court while considering a transfer petition. The wife and the aged parents are not to be compelled to travel all the way to the Family Court, Kollam to contest the proceedings. It is also contended that the wife has filed three proceedings against the husband before the Family Court, Kattappana as, O.P.(HM) No.113 of 2025 seeking divorce, O.P.No.587 of 2024 for return of money and articles, and M.C.No.65 of 2025 seeking maintenance. It is only just and proper that these proceedings be jointly heard and disposed of, failure of which would give way for conflicting decisions. 9. It is only just and proper that these proceedings be jointly heard and disposed of, failure of which would give way for conflicting decisions. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent would, on the other hand, contend that the 1 st appellant is a nurse, who had been employed at various parts of the State. There are various proceedings between the parties pending before the Family Court at Kollam. The original petition, which is now sought to be transferred, is ripe for trial and it is at that stage that transfer has been sought. There is no bonafides in the request made, it is argued. 10. We have considered the rival submissions. 11. Firstly, we notice the present stage of O.P. (HMA) No.533 of 2022 in respect of which transfer is sought. Admittedly, the original petition is ripe for trial and all that remains is taking for evidence. It is at that stage that the transfer is sought. 12. With regard to the contention of the appellants that there will be conflicting findings in O.P.(HMA) No.533 of 2022 of Family Court, Kollam and O.P.(HM) No.113 of 2025 of the Family Court, Kattappana both being proceedings in relation to the marriage, it is to be noticed that, O.P.(HMA) No.174 of 2022 is one filed by the husband seeking declaration of nullity of marriage, whereas the original petition filed by the wife is one seeking divorce on the ground of desertion and cruelty. There cannot be any conflicting findings since the grounds are not inter-related. Even taking it to be that there will be overlapping evidence, it is to be noticed that the original petition filed by the husband seeking nullity of marriage was filed in the year 2022. The wife chose to file the original petition for divorce only in the year 2025, that is, three years later when the original petition filed by the husband was ripe for trial. The trial cannot be permitted to be stalled by the wife by filing an original petition when evidence is about to be taken therein, contending that these original petitions are to be jointly tried. The argument of the learned counsel is only to be repelled and we do so. 13. It is also of relevance that, as sought by the appellants-petitioners, the original petition was once transferred from the Family Court, Nedumangad to the Family Court, Kollam. The argument of the learned counsel is only to be repelled and we do so. 13. It is also of relevance that, as sought by the appellants-petitioners, the original petition was once transferred from the Family Court, Nedumangad to the Family Court, Kollam. Now, the reason that they have shifted their residence to Idukki and they want transfer to the Family Court at Kattappana. We do not think that the wife can go on changing the place of residence and keep on seeking for transfer of the proceedings at her convenience. 14. For the above reasons we find that the learned Single Judge was right in having declined the prayer for transfer. Resultantly, the appeal fails and is dismissed. No costs.