Even If They Know English, They Don’t Speak It: Supreme Court Transfers Matrimonial Case From Kerala To Punjab

The Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta was hearing a plea filed by a woman seeking transfer of matrimonial proceedings initiated by her husband in Kerala to Ludhiana, Punjab.

Can language be assumed as no barrier in court proceedings? The question came up when the husband’s counsel argued that there would be no difficulty in conducting proceedings in Kerala, asserting that “everybody knows English in Kerala” and that the State is “language-friendly.”

The Court did not accept that submission. Justice Sandeep Mehta remarked that such assumptions about language accessibility were misplaced in a courtroom setting, observing that even if people understand English, they may not necessarily use it in legal proceedings. "It is very difficult there. Don’t tell us. Even if people know English, they don’t want to speak it," he said.

"Kerala is a language-friendly State. Everybody knows English there," the counsel responded.

However, Justice Mehta said, "Everybody who practices in the Supreme Court also doesn’t know English…"

The wife, currently residing in the United Kingdom, had argued that she was unable to effectively contest the case in Kerala due to logistical and language constraints. Her counsel also pointed out that her mother, who is assisting her in India, was facing similar difficulties.

What was the dispute about?

The matrimonial dispute stems from a marriage in 2017. The couple lived together until 2023, after which they moved to the United Kingdom. The relationship broke down, following which the husband returned to India with their minor child and initiated proceedings in Kerala, including custody and divorce cases.

The wife sought transfer of the case, arguing that continuing proceedings in Kerala would severely prejudice her ability to participate.

The husband opposed the plea, stating that the child had been residing with him in Kerala for the past three years and that the proceedings should remain there. He also argued that the wife being abroad did not justify shifting the forum.

However, the Bench noted that the wife had not been able to effectively participate in the ongoing proceedings and treated that as a crucial factor, especially given the custody implications.

The Court also considered practical concerns relating to the minor child, including the inconvenience of long-distance travel if hearings required repeated physical presence. Conclusively, the Bench allowed the transfer petition and directed that the pending proceedings be shifted from Kerala to a competent court in Ludhiana, Punjab.