No Inflexible Rule That Every Matrimonial Proceeding Must Be Transferred To Place Of Wife's Choice: Kerala High Court
The case had been instituted by their daughter-in-law under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Justice Jobin Sebastian, Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court has held that there is no inflexible rule that every proceeding instituted by the wife must necessarily be transferred to the place of her choice, while dismissing a plea seeking transfer of a domestic violence case from Nedumangad to Kollam.
A Bench of Justice Jobin Sebastian held, “The convenience of the parties is undoubtedly one of the factors to be considered. However, the expression “convenience of the parties” cannot be understood as referring to the convenience of the petitioner alone. The Court is required to assess the comparative convenience and hardship of both sides and determine whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, transfer of the proceedings is necessary in the interests of justice.”
Advocate Pratheesh. P appeared for the Petitioners and Advocate Rahul Krishnan U.S. appeared for the Respondents.
The plea was filed by the father-in-law, aged 70, and his wife.
The case had been instituted by their daughter-in-law, under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, seeking various reliefs as an aggrieved woman.
The petitioners sought transfer of the proceedings to the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kollam. They contended that they reside in Kollam and that the Nedumangad court is more than 70 kilometres away, requiring them to undertake a journey of nearly 140 kilometres to and fro on each posting. They also relied on the age and alleged cardiac ailments of the first petitioner and pointed out that connected proceedings were pending before courts in Kollam.
The wife opposed the transfer, contending that moving the case to Kollam would tell heavily upon her and make it difficult for her to travel such a long distance to prosecute her petition. Her counsel also urged that due weight should be given to the convenience of the wife and that a victim-centric approach should be adopted.
The Court reiterated, “the Court is required to give due consideration to the convenience of the wife, particularly where she is the aggrieved party prosecuting proceedings arising out of alleged matrimonial violence. This principle, however, cannot be understood as laying down an inflexible rule that every proceeding instituted by the wife must necessarily be transferred to the place of her choice. ”
According to the Court, the facts of each case must be examined and a balance struck between the competing claims of convenience, hardship and the overall interests of justice.
In the present case, the Court noted that the proceedings under the PWDV Act had been instituted by the first respondent as an aggrieved woman. Transferring the case from Nedumangad to Kollam would necessarily require her to travel to a different place to conduct the proceedings.
The fact that the petitioners reside in Kollam and that connected proceedings were pending there “cannot, by itself, outweigh the inconvenience that may be caused to the 1st respondent,” the Court held.
The Court also considered the petitioners' contention regarding the age and medical condition of the first petitioner.
However, it noted that the medical record relied upon by them was dated November 15, 2012. No recent medical record had been produced to establish his present medical condition or demonstrate that travelling to Nedumangad was impossible or highly impracticable.
“Mere assertion of age-related ailments,” the Court held, “in the absence of recent medical material demonstrating the extent of the alleged difficulty, cannot by itself constitute a sufficient ground for transfer.”
The Court further noted that the petitioners had not alleged bias, prejudice or any reasonable apprehension regarding the impartiality of the Nedumangad court. There was also no circumstance indicating that they would be denied a fair opportunity to contest the proceedings there.
The pendency of other proceedings at Kollam, the Court said, “by itself, does not furnish a compelling ground for transferring the proceedings under the PWDV Act.”
Holding that the inconvenience pleaded by the petitioners did not outweigh the inconvenience that could be caused to the wife prosecuting the PWDV proceedings, the High Court concluded that no exceptional or compelling circumstance had been demonstrated to warrant interference with the ordinary territorial jurisdiction.
The transfer petition was accordingly dismissed.
Cause Title: Shanmukhan & Anr. v. Ashwathy G S & Anr., [2026:KER:68454]
Appearance:
Petitioners: Advocates Pratheesh.P, Safna P.S.
Respondents: Advocates Rahul Krishnan U.S., Kiran Krishna, Salahudeen M., Siddique Sulaiman