Court Emphasizes Victim-Centric Approach in Matrimonial Dispute Transfer Petitions, Weighing Comparative Hardships of Parties
In a significant judgment delivered on September 9, 2026, the Kerala High Court, presided over by Justice Jobin Sebastian, dismissed a transfer petition filed by the petitioners seeking to move a domestic violence case from Nedumangad to Kollam. The case involves proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDV Act), initiated by the wife of the petitioners' son.
The petitioners, residing in Kollam, argued that the transfer was necessary due to the advanced age and medical ailments of the first petitioner, the father-in-law of the respondent wife, who suffers from cardiac issues and other age-related health problems. They contended that traveling approximately 140 kilometers to Nedumangad for court hearings caused them undue hardship. Additionally, they pointed to connected matrimonial and property proceedings pending at Kollam courts, suggesting the transfer would promote judicial efficiency.
However, the Court gave paramount importance to the convenience and hardship faced by the aggrieved wife prosecuting the case under the PWDV Act. The judgment underscored that while the convenience of both parties is a relevant factor in transfer petitions, the welfare of the wife, especially when she is the victim of domestic violence, deserves special consideration. The Court clarified that the convenience of the petitioner alone cannot be the sole basis for transfer unless exceptional and compelling circumstances exist.
The Court observed that the medical evidence presented by the petitioners was outdated, dating back to 2012, and no recent medical documents substantiated the claimed difficulty in traveling. Furthermore, no allegations of bias or unfairness against the Nedumangad court were raised, and the presence of related cases in Kollam did not constitute sufficient grounds for transfer.
After balancing the comparative inconvenience and hardship of both parties, the High Court held that transferring the case would impose greater difficulty on the aggrieved woman and that the petitioners' inconvenience was insufficient to justify the transfer. The Court reiterated that the power to transfer is discretionary and must be exercised judiciously to serve the interests of justice.
This ruling reaffirms judicial sensitivity towards victims of domestic violence and sets a precedent emphasizing a victim-centric approach in matrimonial dispute transfer petitions, aligning with the objectives of the PWDV Act.
Bottom Line:
Transfer petitions in matrimonial disputes are decided based on the comparative inconvenience and hardship of both parties, with special consideration given to the convenience of the wife, particularly when she is the aggrieved party prosecuting proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Statutory provision(s): Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
Shanmukhan v. Ashwathy G S, (Kerala) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2977679
