1. Transfer petition by wife to move divorce case from family court for joint trial with pending matrimonial proceeding. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 65402
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.S. Dias, J
Sreelekshmi P G – Appellant
Versus
Maneeshkumar K – Respondent
TR.P(C) NO. 585 OF 2026
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: C.R.Sanish, Karthik S. Acharya, Anjana K.P., Arjun Sasi
For the Respondents:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: C.R.Sanish, Karthik S. Acharya, Anjana K.P., Arjun Sasi
For the Respondents:
In matrimonial transfer petitions, the convenience of the wife is a primary consideration, and consolidating related cases in one court prevents conflicting judgments and saves judicial time.
Headnote:(A) Transfer of Matrimonial Proceedings - Convenience of Parties - Convenience of the woman and children is an important and potentially determinative consideration in transferring matrimonial proceedings, balanced against the competing inconveniences of the parties. (Para 4)
(B) Consolidation of Proceedings - Judicial Efficiency - Transfer of a case to a court where another related proceeding is already pending is permissible to ensure joint trial, avoid conflicting decisions, and save judicial time. (Para 5)
Issues: Whether the matrimonial proceeding (OP No.1147/2026) should be transferred from the Family Court, Ernakulam to the Family Court, Alappuzha for the convenience of the petitioner and consolidation of cases.
Result: Allowed
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Wife sought transfer due to lack of chaperone; husband filed divorce as counterblast; no appearance for respondent. (Para 2 , 3 )
3. Convenience of woman is important in transfer of matrimonial proceedings; balancing of competing conveniences required. (Para 4 )
4. In matrimonial transfer petitions, woman's convenience is key; consolidation avoids conflicting decisions and saves judicial time. (Para 4 , 5 )
5. Transfer petition allowed; divorce case transferred to wife's family court for possible consolidation with pending proceeding. (Para 5 )
6. What is the governing principle for transferring matrimonial proceedings under Section 24 CPC?
The convenience of the woman and children is an important consideration and may be determinative, while balancing competing conveniences. (Para 4 )
7. May a court transfer a divorce case to consolidate it with a pending petition for return of patrimony?
Yes, transfer may be granted to avoid conflicting decisions and save judicial time by consolidating and jointly trying related proceedings. (Para 5 )
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN OP NO.1147 OF 2026 OF FAMILY COURT,ERNAKULAM
THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.10.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
C.S.DIAS, J.
1. This transfer petition is filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure to transfer O.P.No.1147/2026 from the Family Court, Ernakulam to the Family Court, Alappuzha.
2. The petitioner states that she is the estranged wife of the respondent. They are issue-less. The petitioner has filed OP No.1006/2026 (Annexure A1) before the Family Court, Alappuzha, against the respondent for a decree for return of patrimony. As a counter blast to the above proceeding, the respondent has filed OP No.1147/2026 before the Family Court, Ernakulam against the petitioner for a decree of divorce. The respondent is contesting Annexure A1 before the Family Court, Alappuzha. There is no person to chaperone the petitioner from Alappuzha to Ernakulam to contest the proceedings before the Family Court, Ernakulam. If OP No.1147/2026 is transferred, the same can be consolidated and jointly tried with Annexure A1 proceeding. Hence, this transfer petition.
3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Although service of notice is complete on the respondent, there is no appearance for him.
4. The principles governing the transfer of proceedings are well settled. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Sumita Singh v. Kumar Sanjay and another [2002 KHC 1889], Vaishali Shridhar Jagtap v. Shridhar Vishwanath Jagtap [2016 KHC 6489], Santhini v. Vijaya Venketesh [2017 (5) KHC 48] and N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha [2022 (5) KHC 185], and a whole line of precedents, has consistently held that, while considering the transfer of matrimonial proceedings, the convenience of the woman and children is an important consideration and, in appropriate cases, may be determinative. At the same time, the Court is required to balance the competing conveniences and inconveniences of the parties, having regard to the nature and circumstances of each case.
5. In light of the afore-mentioned legal principles and having considered the pleadings, the materials on record and the law on the point and also taking into account the fact that Annexure A1 proceeding is already pending before the Family Court, Alappuzha, I am of the definite view that the discretionary power of this Court under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure is to be exercised in favour of the petitioner so that the proceedings can be consolidated, jointly tried, which would avoid conflicting decisions, and would save valuable judicial time. In the result, the transfer petition is allowed with the following directions:
(i) O.P. No.1147/2026 on the file of the the Family Court, Ernakulam is transferred to the Family Court, Alappuzha.
(ii) The parties are at liberty to move the Family Court, Alappuzha, and seek consolidation and joint trial of all the cases pending between them.
(iii) The Registry shall forward a copy of this order to the Family Court, Ernakulam, with instructions to forthwith transmit the records in O.P.No.1147/2026 to the Family Court, Alappuzha.
(iv) The Family Court, Alappuzha, shall, immediately upon receipt of the records in O.P.No.1147/2026, post the said case along with Annexure A1.
