MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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