In a significant ruling, the Kerala High Court has held that territorial jurisdiction is not a determining factor when transferring divorce petitions under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). The judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Harisankar V. Menon, dismissed the appeals filed by the husband challenging the transfer of divorce petitions to the Family Court, Thalassery.
Background of the Case
The case involves multiple petitions filed by a couple whose marriage had deteriorated. The husband, represented by Advocate Akhil Alphonse G., initially filed a divorce petition (O.P. No. 859 of 2023) before the Family Court, Muvattupuzha. Subsequently, the wife, represented by Advocates P. Jeril Babu and Srinath Girish, filed three petitions (O.P. Nos. 902, 913, and 914 of 2023) before the Family Court, Thalassery, seeking divorce, past maintenance, and the return of gold and money.
The wife filed Tr. Petition(C) No. 827 of 2023 before the Kerala High Court, seeking the transfer of the husband’s divorce petition from Muvattupuzha to Thalassery. Conversely, the husband filed Tr. Petition(C) No. 132 of 2024, seeking the transfer of the wife’s petitions from Thalassery to Muvattupuzha.
Legal Issues Involved
The primary legal issue revolved around the question of whether the Family Court, Thalassery, had the jurisdiction to entertain the petitions filed by the wife, given that the couple’s marriage was solemnized and they last resided together within the jurisdiction of the Family Court, Muvattupuzha. The husband contended that the transfer ordered by the Single Judge was unjustified as the Thalassery court lacked jurisdiction.
Court’s Decision
The Kerala High Court upheld the decision of the Single Judge, emphasizing that the territorial jurisdiction is irrelevant when considering transfers under Section 24 of the CPC. The court noted that Section 24 grants the High Court or District Court the authority to transfer any suit, appeal, or proceeding to any subordinate court competent to try or dispose of the same, without being constrained by territorial limits.
In its judgment, the court observed:
“Under Section 24 (1) of the Code, the High Court or District Court may at any stage withdraw any suit, appeal, or other proceeding pending in any court subordinate to it and transfer the same for trial or disposal to any court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same. Thus, when a suit is transferred from one court to another, this Court only needs to make sure that the court to which the suit is transferred is ‘competent to try’ the same. Here, the term competence under Section 24 of the Code is with reference to the status of the court and not with reference to the territorial jurisdiction.”
The court further highlighted the balance of convenience, noting that the wife was residing abroad and her parents were taking care of their minor daughter. This factor weighed in favour of transferring the husband’s petition to Thalassery for the convenience of the wife.
Important Observations:
– “The balance of convenience is in favor of the wife insofar as it is the admitted case that the wife is abroad and her parents are taking care of the minor daughter.”
– “When a suit is transferred from one court to another, this Court only needs to make sure that the court to which the suit is transferred is ‘competent to try’ the same.”
Also Read
Case Details
Bench: Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Harisankar V. Menon
Lawyers: Advocate Akhil Alphonse G. for the appellant (husband) and Advocates P. Jeril Babu and Srinath Girish for the respondent (wife).
Case Numbers: Tr. Appeal(C) Nos. 4 and 5 of 2024
