Division Bench sets aside order shifting case from Kollam Family Court to Punalur, noting proceedings had already reached the trial stage.
Court & Bench
The ruling was delivered by the Kerala High Court through a Division Bench comprising Justice Sathish Ninan and Justice P. Krishna Kumar on 7 March 2026.
Case Title
Binu Das B v. Smitha Raj L
Legal Issue
The central issue before the court was whether a matrimonial case can be transferred to another Family Court when the proceedings have already reached an advanced stage of trial.
The question arose after a Single Judge allowed the transfer of a matrimonial dispute from Family Court Kollam to Family Court Punalur, prompting the husband to challenge the decision through an intra-court appeal.
Case Background
The dispute originated from a matrimonial petition filed by the husband seeking annulment of marriage, which had been solemnised in 2008 according to Hindu rites. The wife contested the petition and also filed a counterclaim for restitution of conjugal rights.
During the proceedings, the wife filed applications seeking permission to open a bank locker and retrieve gold ornaments allegedly kept there. The Family Court dismissed these applications.
The parties were later referred to mediation. In the mediated settlement:
- The husband agreed to return the gold ornaments kept in the locker.
- Both parties agreed to cooperate for the expeditious disposal of the matrimonial proceedings pending before the Kollam Family Court.
After the settlement was implemented, the wife filed a transfer petition, seeking to move the case from Kollam to Punalur. She argued that she was a practising advocate at the Kollam court centre and that appearing there as a litigant could cause professional inconvenience.
A Single Judge of the High Court allowed the request, leading the husband to file a transfer appeal before the Division Bench.
Petitioner’s Stance
The husband argued that the transfer order was improper because the case had already progressed substantially before the Kollam Family Court.
He contended that:
- The wife had actively participated in the proceedings for a long period without raising objections.
- The trial had already reached its final phase.
- Allowing a transfer at that stage would delay the proceedings and defeat the objective of expeditious disposal.
The husband also undertook before the court that the wife’s evidence could be recorded through a commissioner if appearing in person caused any difficulty or embarrassment.
Court’s Reasoning
The Division Bench observed that the case had already reached the trial stage, with only the recording of evidence and final arguments remaining.
The court noted that the wife had participated in the proceedings before the Kollam Family Court from the beginning and had not raised the inconvenience argument earlier, even when the case was posted for evidence.
The Bench held that transferring a matrimonial case after proceedings have substantially progressed is generally inappropriate unless there are compelling reasons.
The court also referred to the earlier decision in Vidhya Mundekkat v. Akhilesh Jayaram, reiterating that transfer of matrimonial proceedings cannot be granted as a matter of routine merely because the wife pleads inconvenience.
Further, the judges pointed out that under the mediated settlement agreement, the wife had expressly agreed to cooperate with the proceedings before the Kollam Family Court for speedy disposal of the case.
Final Ruling
The Division Bench allowed the husband’s transfer appeal and set aside the Single Judge’s order transferring the case to the Family Court at Punalur.
The court held that shifting the case at such an advanced stage of trial would be “unjustified and improper.”
Practical Implications
The decision highlights important principles governing transfer of matrimonial proceedings:
- Courts should avoid transferring cases once the trial has substantially progressed.
- Convenience alone may not justify transfer, especially when the party seeking transfer has already participated in the proceedings for a long time.
- Courts may explore procedural alternatives, such as recording evidence through a commissioner, to address practical difficulties.
- The ruling reinforces the importance of expeditious disposal of matrimonial disputes, particularly where parties have already agreed to cooperate through settlement mechanisms.
The judgment adds clarity on the circumstances in which matrimonial cases may be transferred, emphasizing that transfer requests made at the advanced stage of trial are generally improper unless supported by compelling reasons.
