While allowing a husband’s appeal and setting aside an order transferring a matrimonial case, the Kerala High Court has held that after the proceedings have progressed up to the stage of trial, the transfer of the case to another Court is highly unjustified and improper.

The High Court was considering an intra-court appeal filed against the order of the Single Judge allowing the transfer of a petition on the file of the Family Court, Kollam, to the Family Court, Punalur, at the instance of the respondent wife.

The Division Bench of Justice Sathish Ninan and Justice P. Krishna Kumar held, “Having regard to the entire circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that, after the proceedings have progressed up to the stage of trial, the transfer of the case to another court is highly unjustified and improper.”

“In the above circumstances, we are of the considered view that the order transferring the case at this advanced stage of the proceedings is unsustainable and is liable to be set aside”, it added.

Advocate Johnson Gomez represented the Appellant.

Factual Background

The appellant husband instituted the original petition before the Family Court seeking annulment of the marriage solemnised with the respondent in 2008 in accordance with Hindu religious rites and ceremonies. The respondent raised a counter claim seeking restitution of conjugal rights. She also filed an application to open a bank locker and for handing over the gold ornaments kept therein to her. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the application by the Family Court, the respondent carried the matter before the High Court. After the Family Court’s order was upheld, the respondent filed a fresh application in the original petition, along with a schedule of gold ornaments and wedding photographs.

The Family Court again dismissed the said application. While the original petition challenging the said order was pending, the matter was referred to mediation at the request of the parties. In the mediation proceedings, the parties arrived at a settlement agreement, pursuant to which the appellant husband agreed to return the gold ornaments kept in the locker. Based on the said settlement, the Court disposed of the original petition. A transfer petition was filed by the wife, which came to be allowed by a Single Bench. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant approached the High Court.

Arguments

It was the husband’s case that, after securing the benefits flowing from the mediated settlement, the respondent wife dishonestly and unilaterally filed the transfer petition.

Reasoning

The Bench noted that in the transfer petition, the respondent stated that she is a permanent resident of Pazhakulam in Pathanamthitta District, whereas the appellant is a resident of Kollam. The sole ground urged for transfer was that the wife has been engaged in various matters at the Kollam court centre, including the Family Court, and serious prejudice would be caused to her in participating in the trial at the Kollam centre.

The Bench took note of the fact that the case had reached its final stage and only the recording of evidence remained, followed by final arguments. It was further noticed that the appellant undertook that he was agreeable to the recording of evidence through a commissioner if the respondent experienced any inconvenience or embarrassment in appearing before the court. “Consequently, there would be minimal necessity for the personal appearance of the respondent, particularly since the stages of conciliation and mediation have already been concluded”, it added.

The Bench further held that the wife’s grievance could be adequately addressed by appointing a Commissioner for recording evidence. Considering the fact that under the mediated settlement agreement, the respondent had expressly agreed to fully cooperate with the proceedings before the Family Court, Kollam, for expeditious disposal of the case, the Bench stated, “ We therefore find considerable force in the contention advanced on behalf of the appellant that the present transfer petition was filed only after securing the fruits of the compromise agreement and that the same has resulted in further delay in the disposal of the petition instituted by the appellant/husband.”

Reference was also made to the judgment in Vidhya Mundekkat v. Akhilesh Jayaram (2021), wherein it has been held that transfer cannot be claimed by the wife in any case as a matter of course merely by pleading inconvenience. Thus, allowing the appeal, the Bench set aside the impugned order.

Cause Title: A v. B (Neutral Citation: 2026:KER:18706)

Appearance

Appellant: Advocates Johnson Gomez, Sanjay Johnson, Sanjith Johnson, Abin Jacob Mathew, Deebu R, Arun Johny

Click here to read/download Order


Kerala High CourtJustice Sathish NinanJustice P Krishna Kumar

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.