The court can transfer domestic violence cases to ensure convenience and welfare of children, emphasizing justice and reasonable apprehensions over mere convenience.

ORDER

Dated : 12^th November, 2025 The petitioner in Tr.P.(Crl).71/2024 is the 1^st petitioner in Tr.P.

(Crl).69/2024. The 2^nd petitioner in Tr.P.(Crl).69/2024 is the minor daughter of the petitioner. They are the petitioners in M.C.107/2017 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Varkala, filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 . She filed the above petition before the JFCM Court, Varkala as at the time of filing the suit, she was staying along with the 1^st respondent, namely her husband in the shared household. Now the petitioner is residing at Elippakulam in Alappuzha district, 70 Kms away from the JFCM Court, Varkala. Now she has to attend the JFCM Court, Varkala along with her six year old child travelling such a long distance and the same is affecting the studies of the child and causing irreparable injury and hardship to the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioner prays for transferring M.C.107/2017 pending before the JFCM Court, Varkala to the JFCM Court, Kayamkulam.

2. The 6^th respondent who is the Power of Attorney holder of the

1^st respondent filed defamative statements against the petitioner in the counter affidavit and spread statements amoung the public and hence she filed C.M.P.11246/2018 before the JFCM Court, Varkala and it is numbered as S.T.1981/2022. In Tr.P.(Crl).71/2024 the prayer is to transfer the above S.T.1981/2022 also from JFCM Court, Varkala to JFCM Court, Kayamkulam.

3. The respondent strongly opposed the prayer for transferring the above cases from JFCM Court Varkala to JFCM Court, Kayamkulam. Relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme court inUmesh Kumar Sharma v. State of Uttarakhand and Others , 2020 KHC 6602, the learned counsel would argue that hypersensitivity or relative convenience of a party are not the criterion to be taken into account. In the said decision, the Apex Court referring to the decision in Harita Sunil Parab v. State (NCT of Delhi)

& Ors. (2018) 6 SCC 358 held in paragraph 19 that:

“The apprehension of not getting a fair and impartial inquiry or trial is required to be reasonable and not imaginary, based upon conjectures and surmises. No universal or hard and fast rules can be prescribed for deciding a transfer petition which has always to be decided on the basis of the facts of each case. Convenience of the parties including the witnesses to be produced at the trial is also a relevant consideration for deciding the transfer petition. The convenience of the parties does not necessarily mean the convenience of the petitioners alone who approached the court on misconceived notions of apprehension. Convenience for the purposes of transfer means the convenience of the prosecution, other accused, the witnesses and the larger interest of the society.”

4. In the instant case, the respondents are the husband and in-laws of the petitioner. She happened to file the case before the JFCM Court, Varkala as at that time she was residing in the shared household along with the respondents at Varkala. She is a Dentist by profession and now after the relationship strained, she is living at Elippakulam in Alappuzha district. The child aged six years is studying at Sree Narayana Central School, Kayamkulam. The 1^st respondent is employed abroad and he is represented by his Power of Attorney holder.

5. As argued by the learned counsel for the respondents, the respondents 2 and 3 are the aged parents of the 1^st respondent. However, in a proceeding under Section 12 of the D.V. Act, all the respondents need not appear in person on all the posting dates, like the petitioner. More over, the 1^st respondent is employed abroad and he is represented by his P