Transfer of case at trial's final stage deemed unjustifiable without substantial grounds.

P.Krishna Kumar, J.

This intra-court appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the transfer of O.P.(HMA) No.505/2020 on the file of the Family Court, Kollam, to the Family Court, Punalur, at the instance of the respondent/wife.

2. The appellant is the husband. He instituted the above original petition before the Family Court seeking annulment of the marriage solemnised with the respondent on 11.07.2008 in accordance with Hindu religious rites and ceremonies. The respondent raised a counter claim seeking restitution of conjugal rights. She also filed I.A. No.2/2024 to open a bank locker and for handing over the gold ornaments kept therein to her. The said application having been dismissed by the Family Court, the respondent carried the matter before this Court. Upon this Court upholding the said order, the respondent filed a fresh application as I.A. No.6/2024 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 before this Court, the matter was referred to mediation at the request of the parties.

3. 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 on 03.03.2025. The settlement agreement further provided as follows:

“4. The parties agree that the pending case, OP(HMA) 505/20, filed by the respondent before the Kollam Family Court, will be contested by both parties, and both parties agree to fully cooperate with the proceedings for an expeditious disposal of the same.”

Based on the said settlement, this Court disposed of the original petition.

4. It is not in dispute that the appellant has complied with his obligations under the settlement. According to the appellant, after securing the benefits flowing from the mediated settlement, the respondent dishonestly and unilaterally resiled therefrom and filed the present transfer petition before this Court contending that, since she has been practising at the Kollam court centre, including before the Family Court, Kollam, the case is liable to be transferred to Punalur, which is away from her workplace.

5. The appellant further contends that the case had originally been posted for evidence on 03.12.2024 and was thereafter adjourned, and that at all earlier stages the respondent had actively participated in the proceedings before the said court. It is alleged that the attempt to transfer the proceedings was made solely with the object of delaying the trial, that too after availing the benefits arising from the settlement agreement entered into in the very same proceedings. The impugned order is further assailed on the ground that the learned Single Judge failed to advert to the above aspects while allowing the transfer petition.

6. We have heard Sri. Johnson Gomez, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, and Sri. Sreehari Indukaladharan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

7. 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 reads thus:

“(A) The petitioner is engaged in various matters at the Kollam court centre, including the Family Court, and is regularly practising at the said court centre. There would be serious prejudice to the petitioner in participating in the trial at the Kollam court centre, which is her workplace. Hence, she is not in a position to appear before the Family Court, Kollam, in connection with Annexure-1 petition. Therefore, Annexur