State Can’t Block SARFAESI Sale by Late Revenue Entries: Secured Creditor’s Charge Prevails Over Tax Dues: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams Sub-Registrar’s Refusal Providing SIM Card Without Knowledge of Its Criminal Use Does Not Imply Criminal Conspiracy: P&H High Court Grants Bail in UAPA & Murder Case Importer Who Accepts Enhanced Valuation Cannot Later Contest Confiscation and Penalty for Undervaluation: Madras High Court Upholds Strict Liability under Customs Act "Allegations Are Not Proof: Madras High Court Refuses Divorce Without Substantiated Cruelty or Desertion" When FIR Is Filed After Consulting Political Leaders, the Possibility of Coloured Version Cannot Be Ruled Out: Kerala High Court Mere Allegations of Antecedents Without Conviction Can't Defeat Right to Anticipatory Bail: Kerala High Court Section 106 Of Evidence Act Cannot Be Invoked In Vacuum – Prosecution Must First Lay Foundational Facts: Karnataka High Court Acquits Wife And Co-Accused In Husband’s Murder Case Parity Cannot Be Claimed When Roles Are Different: Karnataka High Court Refuses Bail to Youth Accused of Brutal Killing Injured Wife Would Not Falsely Implicate Her Husband: Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction in Domestic Stabbing Case Disputed Bids, Missing Evidence and No Prejudice: Delhi High Court Refuses to Intervene in Tender Challenge under Article 226 License Fee on Hoardings is Regulatory, Not Tax; GST Does Not Bar Municipal Levy: Bombay High Court Filing Forged Bank Statement to Mislead Court in Maintenance Case Is Prima Facie Offence Under Section 466 IPC: Allahabad High Court Upholds Summoning Continued Cruelty and Concealment of Infertility Justify Divorce: Chhattisgarh High Court Upholds Divorce Disguising Punishment as Simplicity Is Abuse of Power: Delhi High Court Quashes Dismissals of Civil Defence Volunteers for Being Stigmatic, Not Simpliciter Marriage Cannot Be Perpetuated on Paper When Cohabitation Has Ceased for Decades: Supreme Court Invokes Article 142 to Grant Divorce Despite Wife’s Opposition Ownership of Trucks Does Not Mean Windfall Compensation: Supreme Court Slashes Inflated Motor Accident Award in Absence of Documentary Proof Concealment of Mortgage Is Fraud, Not a Technical Omission: Supreme Court Restores Refund Decree, Slams High Court’s Remand State Reorganization Does Not Automatically Convert Cooperative Societies into Multi-State Entities: Supreme Court Rejects Blanket Interpretation of Section 103 Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Once a Court Declares a Department an Industry Under Section 2(j), State Cannot Raise the Same Objection Again: Gujarat High Court Slams Repetitive Litigation by Irrigation Department “How Could Cheques Issued in 2020 Be Mentioned in a 2019 Contract?”: Delhi High Court Grants Injunction in Forged MOA Case, Slams Prima Facie Fabrication

Jurisdiction Does Not Preclude Transfer to Competent Family Courts: Rules Kerala High Court

28 December 2024 12:45 PM

By: sayum


Husband’s Appeal Against Transfer of Divorce Case to Family Court, Thalassery Dismissed; Convenience of Wife Upheld. The High Court of Kerala has dismissed appeals challenging the transfer of matrimonial cases between the Family Courts of Muvattupuzha and Thalassery, underscoring the balance of convenience in favor of the wife. The bench, comprising Justices Anil K. Narendran and Harisankar V. Menon, upheld the Single Judge’s orders on jurisdiction and convenience grounds.

Eldho Varghese, the appellant, and Liya Jose, the respondent, were married in Muvattupuzha. Their matrimonial disputes led to the filing of multiple petitions:

Eldho Varghese filed for divorce (O.P. No. 859 of 2023) in the Family Court, Muvattupuzha.

Liya Jose filed for divorce (O.P. No. 902 of 2023), past maintenance (O.P. No. 913 of 2023), and the return of gold and money (O.P. No. 914 of 2023) in the Family Court, Thalassery.

Both parties sought transfers to their preferred jurisdictions. The Single Judge allowed the wife’s transfer petition, moving Eldho’s divorce petition to Thalassery, and dismissed Eldho’s request to transfer Liya’s petitions to Muvattupuzha.

Eldho Varghese argued that the Family Court, Thalassery, lacked jurisdiction under Section 3(3) of the Divorce Act, 1869. This section limits the jurisdiction to courts within the local limits where the marriage was solemnized or where the couple last resided together.

The High Court clarified that Section 3(3) pertains to the institution of petitions and not to the transfer of cases. The Family Court, Thalassery, was deemed competent to try the transferred cases under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).

The Court reiterated that under Section 24 of CPC, cases can be transferred to any subordinate court competent to try them. The term “competence” refers to the court’s status, not its territorial jurisdiction. The Family Court, Thalassery, was found competent to try the transferred petitions.

The Court noted the wife’s circumstances, emphasizing her residence abroad and her minor daughter being in the care of her parents. These factors justified the transfer to the Family Court, Thalassery, aligning with the principle of balance of convenience.

The High Court held that the Single Judge correctly exercised discretion under Section 24 of CPC. The transfer was justified based on the wife’s convenience and the competence of the Family Court, Thalassery.

Under Section 7(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, Family Courts possess the jurisdiction of District Courts for matrimonial matters. The Family Court, Thalassery, was thus deemed appropriate to handle the transferred cases.

Justice Harisankar V. Menon remarked, “The balance of convenience is in favor of the wife, considering her residence abroad and her minor daughter’s care by her parents. The Family Court, Thalassery, is competent to try the transferred cases, ensuring justice and convenience.”

The High Court’s decision affirms the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring justice by considering the balance of convenience and the competence of courts in matrimonial disputes. This judgment is expected to guide future cases involving jurisdictional challenges in matrimonial matters, reinforcing the legal framework for family law in Kerala.

Date of Decision: June 06, 2024

 

Latest Legal News