Family Courts Reorganisation Was Done In Interest Of Administration Of Justice: Kerala High Court Rejects Plea Seeking Re-Transfer Of Matrimonial Plea

The Kerala High Court has held that transferring proceedings simply because they were assigned to a new court following the administrative re-determination of territorial jurisdiction would defeat the state's objective of securing an equitable distribution of cases and serving the larger interest of the administration of justice.

The Court dismissed a transfer petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to re-transfer a child custody dispute from the Family Court, Aluva, back to the Family Court, Ernakulam.

The Bench of Justice CS Dias held, "More importantly, permitting the transfer merely because the proceedings were transferred pursuant to the administrative decision of this Court would defeat the objective sought to be achieved by the re-determination of the territorial jurisdiction of the Family Courts. The reorganisation was undertaken in the larger interest of the administration of justice and to secure a more equitable distribution of cases among the Family Courts in each District. An exception in the present case, in the absence of compelling circumstances warranting such intervention, would run counter to the object sought to be achieved."

Advocate VK Balachandran appeared for the Petitioner, while Advocate NS Hasna Mol appeared for the Respondents

Brief Facts

A transfer petition was filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking transfer of a plea from the Family Court, Aluva, to the Family Court, Ernakulam. 

It was the case of the Petitioner/Husband that the Respondent/Wife was his estranged wife and that they have three children born in their wedlock. Respondents 2 and 3 were his parents. 

According to the petitioner, the Respondent/Wife wilfully denied him custody of his children. Accordingly, he filed a plea before the Family Court, Ernakulam, seeking custody of the children.

The Family Court granted him interim custody and visitation rights of the children, which order the first respondent challenged before the Court. However, the High Court dismissed the original petition.

Subsequently, pursuant to the Government of Kerala re-determining the territorial jurisdiction of the Family Courts on the basis of villages instead of taluks, the original petition was transferred from the Family Court, Ernakulam, to the Family Court, Aluva.

Contentions of the Parties

It was the case of the Petitioner that the transfer of the proceedings caused inconvenience to both sides. 

It was the case of the Respondent/Wife that she and the children reside in Thrikkakara Village, Kakkanad, and that it was more convenient for them to attend proceedings before the Family Court, Aluva.

It was further contended that, in view of Section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, the Family Court, Aluva, was the court of competent jurisdiction, as the children ordinarily reside within its jurisdiction.

Observations/Findings of the Court

The Court noted that, on its administrative side, after taking into consideration various relevant factors, including the convenience of litigants and the need to equalise the pendency in the Family Courts in the Districts of Ernakulam, Thiruvananthapuram, Kollam, Thrissur and Malappuram, recommended refixation of the territorial jurisdiction of the Family Courts in the above Districts on the basis of villages instead of taluks.

It was added that pursuant to the said recommendation, the Government published in the Kerala Gazette that it refixed the territorial jurisdiction of the Family Courts in the aforesaid Districts.

The Court reiterated that, while considering the transfer of matrimonial proceedings, the convenience of the woman and children is an important consideration and, in appropriate cases, may be determinative. At the same time, the Court is required to balance the competing conveniences and inconveniences of the parties, having regard to the nature and circumstances of each case.

"The recommendation for refixation of the territorial jurisdiction of the Family Courts in the above-mentioned Districts was made by this Court after considering the larger interests of the administration of justice and the convenience of litigants. The transfer of the proceedings in the present case is a direct consequence of the decision. The petitioner, therefore, cannot seek re-transfer merely on the ground of his inconvenience", the Court held.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the transfer petition.

Cause Title: H v. W [Neutral Citation: 2026:KER:77263]

Appearances:

Petitioner: Advocate V.K. Balachandran, Advocate Amrutha P.S.

Respondent: Advocate N.S. Hasna Mol, Advocate Pooja M. Nair, Advocate K.K. Nasseer (Aluva), Advocate Sudheer K.K.

Click here to read/download the Order