1. Transfer petition under Section 24 CPC seeking transfer of custody proceedings from Family Court, Aluva, to Family Court, Ernakulam, after jurisdictional re-fixation. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 6 , 7 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 65580
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.S. Dias, J
NITHIN JOSE – Appellant
Versus
DIANA PAUL – Respondent
Tr.P(C) 496/2026
Advocates:
For the Appellants/ Petitioners: V.K. Balachandran, Amrutha P.S.
For the Respondents: N.S. Hasna Mol, Pooja M. Nair, K.K. Nasseer, Sudheer K.K.
For the Appellants/ Petitioners: V.K. Balachandran, Amrutha P.S.
For the Respondents: N.S. Hasna Mol, Pooja M. Nair, K.K. Nasseer, Sudheer K.K.
In matrimonial transfers, the convenience of women and children is paramount. However, administrative refixation of territorial jurisdiction for judicial efficiency and equitable case distribution overrides individual convenience unless compelling circumstances exist.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 24 - Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 - Section 9 - Transfer of matrimonial proceedings - Balancing convenience of parties - Convenience of the woman and children is an important consideration and may be determinative in appropriate cases - (Paras 10, 11)
(B) Administrative decision - Territorial jurisdiction of Family Courts - Refixation of jurisdiction based on villages to equalize pendency and improve administration of justice - Request for re-transfer cannot be granted merely based on individual inconvenience when the transfer is a consequence of a general administrative decision aimed at a more equitable distribution of cases - (Paras 8, 12)
Facts of the case:
A petition for the custody of children was initially filed before one family court. Following a government notification that refixed the territorial jurisdiction of family courts based on villages rather than taluks to balance case pendency, the proceedings were transferred to another family court. The petitioner sought to re-transfer the case back to the original court, arguing that the children had become acquainted with a lawyer appointed under a child legal assistance program in the original court and that the change caused hardship. The respondent opposed the transfer, stating that she and the children reside within the jurisdiction of the current court.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that the distance between the two courts is minimal and well-connected. The respondent and the children reside closer to the current court. Additionally, the current court has lower pendency, which is likely to lead to a more expeditious conclusion of the proceedings. The transfer was a direct consequence of an administrative decision made in the larger interest of the administration of justice.
Issues: Whether the proceedings should be re-transferred to the original family court based on the children's familiarity with a specific lawyer and the petitioner's convenience, despite the transfer being part of a broader administrative reorganization of territorial jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi: While the convenience of the woman and children is a primary consideration in matrimonial transfers, such discretionary jurisdiction will not be exercised to overturn an administrative refixation of territorial jurisdiction aimed at judicial efficiency and equitable case distribution, unless compelling circumstances are present. The objective of administrative reorganization for the larger interest of justice outweighs individual inconvenience.
Result: Transfer petition dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner sought re-transfer due to children's acquaintance with CLAP Lawyer and inconvenience; respondent opposed citing residence and jurisdictional competence. (Para 2 , 3 , 5 )
3. Court noted administrative re-fixation served larger interests; distance between courts minor, respondent closer to Aluva, and Aluva has lower pendency. (Para 8 , 9 , 11 )
4. Transfer of proceedings pursuant to administrative re-fixation of territorial jurisdiction should not be reversed absent compelling circumstances, balancing conveniences and administrative objectives. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 )
5. What principles govern transfer of matrimonial proceedings regarding convenience of parties?
Courts consider convenience of woman and children as important, potentially determinative, but balance competing conveniences and circumstances of each case. (Para 10 )
6. Should transfer of cases due to administrative re-fixation of territorial jurisdiction be reversed on party inconvenience?
No, absent compelling circumstances, because re-fixation serves larger administration of justice and equitable distribution, and reversing would defeat its objective. (Para 8 , 12 )
7. Does the appointment of a CLAP lawyer for children justify transferring proceedings to a different court?
No, the court declined transfer but directed the new court to seek assistance of the same CLAP lawyer to preserve children's familiarity and support. (Para 2 , 5 )
“C.R”
Dated this the 7th day of October, 2026
ORDER
The transfer petition is filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking transfer of O.P. No. 1271 of 2023 from the Family Court, Aluva, to the Family Court, Ernakulam.
2. The petitioner states that the first respondent is his estranged wife and that they have three children born in their wedlock. Respondents 2 and 3 are his parents. According to the petitioner, the first respondent has wilfully denied him custody of his children. Accordingly, he filed O.P. No. 2496 of 2023 before the Family Court, Ernakulam, seeking custody of the children. The Family Court granted him interim custody and visitation rights of the children, which order the first respondent challenged before this Court in O.P.(FC) No. 94 of 2024. However, this Court dismissed the original petition. Thereafter, the first respondent filed applications before the Family Court to modify the interim custody order; those applications were also dismissed. Subsequently, pursuant to the Government of Kerala re-determining the territorial jurisdiction of the Family Courts on the basis of villages instead of taluks, the original petition was transferred from the Family Court, Ernakulam, to the Family Court, Aluva, and renumbered as O.P. No. 1271 of 2023. The petitioner resides at Thiruvananthapuram, whereas the first respondent and the children reside at Kakkanad, Ernakulam. According to the petitioner, the transfer of the proceedings has caused inconvenience to both sides. He further states that the Family Court, Ernakulam, had appointed a lawyer for the children under the Child Legal Assistance Program (‘CLAP Lawyer’, for brevity), with whom the children have become acquainted. It is contended that continuation of the proceedings before the Family Court, Aluva, would cause serious hardship and prejudice to the petitioner and the children. Hence, the transfer petition.
3. The first respondent has filed a counter affidavit opposing the transfer petition. She contends that she and the children reside in Thrikkakara Village, Kakkanad, and that it is more convenient for them to attend proceedings before the Family Court, Aluva. It is further contended that, in view of Section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, the Family Court, Aluva, is the court of competent jurisdiction, as the children ordinarily reside within its jurisdiction. The first respondent contends that the transfer petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.
4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent.
5. The petitioner’s grievance is against the transfer of the proceedings from the Family Court, Ernakulam, to the Family Court, Aluva. The petitioner contends that the CLAP Lawyer appointed by the Family Court, Ernakulam, has become acquainted with the children and that it would therefore be contrary to their best interests to continue the proceedings before the Family Court, Aluva. Hence, he seeks re-transfer of the proceedings to the Family Court, Ernakulam.
6. This Court, on its administrative side, after taking into consideration various relevant factors, including the convenience of litigants and the need to equalise the pendency in the Family Courts in the Districts of Ernakulam, Thiruvananthapuram, Kollam, Thrissur and Malappuram, recommended refixation of the territorial jurisdiction of the Family Courts in the above Districts on the basis of villages instead of taluks. Pursuant to the said recommendation, the Government of Kerala, by G.O.(Ms) No.51/2026/Home (1) to (4) (S.R.O.Nos.351-354/2026) dated 06.03.2026, published in the Kerala Gazette No.1102, Vol.XV dated 11.03.2026, refixed the territorial jurisdiction of the Family Courts in the aforesaid Districts.
7. It is pursuant to the above-mentioned Gazette Notification that O.P. No. 1271 of 2023 was transferred from the Family Court, Ernakulam, to the Family Court, Aluva.
8. The recommendation for
