Dowry Case | In the absence of specific allegations, mere naming of distant relatives cannot justify prosecution: MP High Court Non-Commencement of Activities Alone Not a Ground for Refusal: Calcutta High Court at Calcutta Affirms Trust Registration, Stating Granting Shifting Permissions is a Quasi-Judicial Act: Delhi High Court Quashes Disciplinary Charges Against MCA Official Jurisdiction Does Not Preclude Transfer to Competent Family Courts: Rules Kerala High Court Madras High Court Acquits Two, Reduces Sentence of Main Accused: Single Injury Does Not Prove Intent to Murder Financial Creditors Retain Right to Pursue Personal Guarantors Post-Resolution Plan: Punjab & Haryana High Court Proper Notice and Enquiry are the Bedrock of Just Administrative Actions: Rajasthan High Court Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Discharge Order in Madan Tamang Murder Case, Orders Trial for Bimal Gurung Review Cannot be Treated Like an Appeal in Disguise: Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Tax Review Petition Delhi High Court Orders Interest Payment on Delayed Tax Refunds: ‘Refund Delays Cannot Be Justified by Legal Issues’” Freedom of Press Does Not Exempt Legal Consequences: Kerala High Court Quashes Proceedings Against Journalists in Jail Sting Operation Highest Bidder Has No Vested Right”: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Rejection of SEZ Plot Allotment Indefeasible Right to Bail Arises When Investigation Exceeds Statutory Period: Punjab & Haryana HC Sets Aside Extension Orders in NDPS Case Higher Qualifications Can't Override Prescribed Standards, But Service Deserves Pension: Punjab & Haryana High Court A Mere Breach of Promise Does Not Constitute Criminal Breach of Trust Under Section 406 IPC: Rajasthan High Court Madras High Court Overturns Order Denying IDA Increments, Citing Unfair Settlement Exclusion No Premeditated Intention to Kill: Kerala High Court Reduces Murder Convictions in Football Clash Case Landlord Need Not Be Owner to Seek Eviction: Court Upholds Broad Definition of Landlord under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 Delhi High Court Sets Aside Status Quo on Property, Initiates Contempt Proceedings for False Pleadings and Suppression of Facts Calcutta High Court Rules Deceased Driver Qualifies as Third Party, Overrides Policy Limitations for Just Compensation A Litigant Who Pollutes the Stream of Justice Is Not Entitled to Any Relief: Rajasthan High Court Cancels Bail in Murder Case Due to Suppression of Evidence Punjab and Haryana High Court Awards Compensation in Illegal Termination Case, Affirms Forest Department as an 'Industry' Suspicion Cannot Replace Proof: Madras High Court Acquits Man in Double Murder Case Kerala High Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings in Loan Repayment Dispute: Manifestly Attended with Mala Fide Intentions Systematic Instruction Essential for ‘Education’ Tax Exemption: Delhi High Court Intent to Deceive Constitutes Forgery: High Court of Calcutta Dismisses Quashing Petition in Fraudulent Property Inclusion Case

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

 

Similar News