1. Multiple family court proceedings involving property, matrimonial status, and financial claims were transferred by the trial court to ensure party convenience. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 74878
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Sathish Ninan, P. Krishna Kumar, JJ
Jadeer Ahammed – Appellant
Versus
Shasni S – Respondent
TR.APPEAL(C) NO. 25 OF 2026|TR.APPEAL(C) NO. 26 OF 2026|TR.APPEAL(C) NO. 27 OF 2026|TR.APPEAL(C) NO. 28 OF 2026
Important Points
The court affirmed that the convenience of the wife, including her residence and employment, is a primary consideration for transferring matrimonial proceedings, and such convenience outweighs the incidental hardship faced by the husband's aged parents.
Subject
Civil - Family Law
Headnote
(A) Transfer of Matrimonial Proceedings - Convenience of Parties - In determining the venue for family court proceedings, the convenience of the wife, particularly her place of residence and employment, is a significant factor that outweighs the inconvenience caused to the husband or his aged parents. (Para 4, 6)
(B) Balance of Hardships - Aged Parents - The necessity of aged parents to appear for evidence does not outweigh the ongoing hardship faced by a spouse required to travel long distances for multiple proceedings, as the court can mitigate the parents' hardship by optimizing the evidence schedule. (Para 6)
Issues: Whether the order transferring multiple family court proceedings from Vadakara and Kozhikode to Thiruvananthapuram based on the convenience of the wife was justified.
(B) Balance of Hardships - Aged Parents - The necessity of aged parents to appear for evidence does not outweigh the ongoing hardship faced by a spouse required to travel long distances for multiple proceedings, as the court can mitigate the parents' hardship by optimizing the evidence schedule. (Para 6)
Issues: Whether the order transferring multiple family court proceedings from Vadakara and Kozhikode to Thiruvananthapuram based on the convenience of the wife was justified.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: P. Jeril Babu, Srinath Girish
For the Respondents: M.C. Ashi
For the Appellants/Petitioners: P. Jeril Babu, Srinath Girish
For the Respondents: M.C. Ashi
Table of Contents
2. The appellant contested the transfer citing pendency of other proceedings in a different jurisdiction and the necessity of aged parents appearing at the original forum. (Para 5 , 6 )
3. The wife's residential and occupational convenience, alongside measures to mitigate hardship for elderly parties via fixed-date evidence recording, justifies transferring proceedings to her local forum. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 )
4. The balance of convenience, particularly the difficulty of travel for a party, outweighs procedural objections related to the presence of elderly family members in family law disputes. (Para 4 , 6 )
5. The appeals against the transfer order are dismissed without costs. (Para 7 )
6. Can family law proceedings be transferred between courts based primarily on the convenience of one party?
Yes, transfer of proceedings may be ordered when significant personal hardship, such as distance between residence and locus of litigation, outweighs opposing procedural concerns, provided that the court can mitigate potential inconvenience to other parties. (Para 4 , 6 )
7. How should courts address the presence of elderly parties when transferring legal proceedings to a distant forum?
Courts may manage the hardship of elderly parties by ensuring their appearance for evidence is limited to single, pre-scheduled dates, thereby preventing repetitive travel requirements. (Para 6 )
Sathish Ninan, J.
The common order in the Transfer Petitions, transferring four Original Petitions, one pending before the Family Court, Vadakara and three before the Family Court, Kozhikode, to the Family Court at Thiruvananthapuram, is under challenge in these appeals.
2. O.P.No.529 of 2025 was filed by the husband against the wife seeking declaration of title in respect of the immovable property scheduled thereto. O.P.No.1161 of 2025 is filed by the wife before the Family Court, Kozhikode in respect of the very same property. O.P.No.1168 of 2025 is filed by the wife before the Family Court, Kozhikode, seeking dissolution of marriage. O.P.No.1195 of 2025 is filed by the wife before the Family Court, Kozhikode for return of gold and money. By way of the transfer petitions, the wife sought transfer of all these proceedings to the Family Court, Thiruvananathapuram. The learned Single Judge was pleased to allow the transfer.
3. We have heard the learned counsel on both sides.
4. The fact that the wife, who is a doctor, is presently residing at Thiruvananthapuram, is employed in a hospital there, are not disputed. Her permanent residence is at Kollam. It is thus, taking note of the convenience of the wife that the learned Single Judge was pleased to order the transfer. We find that the order is well grounded.
5. The learned counsel for the appellants pointed out that there are two other proceedings still pending at Kozhikode; one M.C proceeding before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kozhikode and the other is a suit, is before the Sub Court, Kozhikode. The wife need to prosecute the said proceedings before the courts at Kozhikode. This does not justify the cause projected for transfer, it is argued. The learned counsel for the wife submitted that, steps are being taken to get transfer of the MC proceedings from the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court to Thiruvananthapuram; with regard to the suit pending before the Sub Court, Kozhikode, it is pointed out that the said suit is filed by the wife, for damages alleging defamation and since there is lack of jurisdiction for the civil court to entertain it, steps are being taken to get return of the same. In the light of the above the argument of the appellant loses its force.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant-husband pointed out that, in O.P.No.1195 of 2025, wherein the claim is one for gold and money, relief is sought against his aged parents. Therefore the transfer is not justifiedm it is contended. We notice that the parents are aged 70 years and 63 years. Their appearance would be necessary only at the time of evidence. Their interests could be taken care of by the Family Court by making every endavour to see that their evidence is recorded and completed on the day fixed for their evidence without requiring repeated travel. This does not outweigh the hardship of the wife being required to travel from Thiruvananthapuram to Kozhikode to prosecute all the proceedings there.
7. In the light of the above, we find that the order of the learned Single Judge does not warrant any interference.
Resultantly, the appeals fail and are dismissed. No costs.
