A husband challenged the sudden transfer of a long-running matrimonial dispute after the case had already reached the final stage of trial. The Kerala High Court stepped in and made it clear that such late attempts to shift courts cannot derail proceedings that are already nearing conclusion.
ERNAKULAM: The Kerala High Court, in a judgment delivered by Justice Sathish Ninan and Justice P. Krishna Kumar, set aside an order that had transferred a matrimonial dispute from the Family Court in Kollam to the Family Court in Punalur. The appeal was filed by the husband after the transfer was allowed on the request of the wife.
The husband had originally filed a petition before the Family Court seeking annulment of the marriage. During the proceedings, both sides filed multiple applications relating to matrimonial disputes and gold ornaments kept in a bank locker.
Later, the matter was referred to mediation, where the parties reached a settlement and agreed to cooperate with the ongoing proceedings.
After the husband complied with the settlement terms, the wife approached the High Court seeking transfer of the case to another Family Court. She argued that she was actively engaged in legal work at the Kollam court centre and therefore attending the proceedings there would cause difficulty.
The husband opposed the transfer and argued that the case had already reached the stage of trial and evidence. He also pointed out that the wife had earlier participated in the proceedings, and the transfer request appeared to be an attempt to delay the case.
While examining the matter, the High Court noted that the proceedings had already progressed to the final stage where only evidence and final arguments remained. The Court observed that shifting the case at such a stage would disrupt the trial and cause unnecessary delay.
The Bench clearly held that transferring the case at this advanced stage was unjustified, observing that:
“After the proceedings have progressed up to the stage of trial, the transfer of the case to another court is highly unjustified and improper.”
The Court also noted that the inconvenience claimed by the wife could be addressed through other means, including recording evidence through a commissioner if required.
Importantly, the Court reaffirmed that transfer cannot be sought simply on the basis of inconvenience. Referring to earlier precedent, the Bench observed that:
“Transfer cannot be claimed by the wife in any case as a matter of course merely by pleading inconvenience.”
Considering these circumstances, the Kerala High Court allowed the husband’s appeal and set aside the earlier order granting transfer. As a result, the matrimonial case will continue before the Family Court in Kollam where it was originally filed.
Explainatory Table: Laws And Provisions Involved
| Law / Provision | Purpose | Hoe Applied In This Case |
| Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 | The main legislation governing marriage, divorce, annulment and related matrimonial remedies among Hindus. | The husband filed the original matrimonial petition O.P.(HMA) No.505/2020 under this Act seeking annulment of marriage. |
| Civil Procedure Code (Transfer Jurisdiction – Section 24 CPC) | Gives High Courts the power to transfer cases from one court to another if justice requires it. | The wife invoked transfer jurisdiction seeking to shift the matrimonial case from Family Court Kollam to Family Court Punalur. |
| Family Courts Act, 1984 | Establishes Family Courts for speedy settlement of family disputes such as marriage, divorce, custody and maintenance. | The matrimonial dispute and related applications were being heard before the Family Court, Kollam. |
| Judicial Precedent – Vidhya Mundekkat v. Akhilesh Jayaram (2021) | Kerala High Court precedent stating that transfer cannot be granted automatically merely because the wife claims inconvenience. | The Bench relied on this precedent while rejecting the wife’s request for transfer. |
Case Details
- Case Title: Binu Das B v. Smitha Raj L.
- Case Number: Tr. Appeal (C) No. 4 of 2026
- Court: High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam
- Date of Judgment: 02 March 2026
- Neutral Citation: 2026:KER:18706
- Bench: Justice Sathish Ninan & Justice P. Krishna Kumar
- Counsels:
- For Appellant: Johnson Gomez, Sanjay Johnson, Sanjith Johnson, Abin Jacob Mathew, Deebu R. and Arun Johny
- For Respondent: Sreehari Indukaladharan
key Takeaways
- Matrimonial disputes cannot be endlessly delayed by shifting cases from one court to another after the trial stage has already begun.
- Simply claiming inconvenience should not automatically become a weapon to move proceedings and prolong litigation.
- Once parties accept benefits from a settlement, backing out later to create procedural hurdles undermines fairness in the justice process.
- Family disputes require timely resolution, and procedural tactics that stretch cases for years harm both justice and the individuals involved.
- Equal procedural discipline must apply to both sides so that matrimonial litigation does not become a tool of pressure or delay.
This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.