IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH JULY 2011 / 5TH SRAVANA 1933 Tr.P(C).No. 188 of 2011() ----------------------------------- OP.539/2011 OF FAMILY COURT, NEDUMANGAD TO FAMILY COURT, KOLLAM TO BE JOINTLY TRIED ALONG WITH M.C. NO.93/2011 AND O.P.(G&W)NO.493/2011. .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- SHINI SHAKEER, D/O.ABDUL SHAKEER, PULAVAR NIVAS, MADATHILAZHIK0M, VADAKKEVILA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL, SMT.P.S.PREETHA, SRI.SAIJU S., SRI.T.PRASAD. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- A. NAZARUDEEN, S/O.AHAMMED KANNU, C.V. HOUSE, THOTTUMUKKU, VITHURA P.O., THOLICODE VILLAGE, NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.AJAYA KUMAR. G. THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs Tr.P(C).No. 188 of 2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE-I: COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A. NO.880/2011 IN O.P. NO. 539/2011 DATED 04/05/2011 OF THE FAMILY COURT, NEDUMANGAD. RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Tr.P(C) No.188 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 27th day of July, 2011 O R D E R Petitioner-wife seeks transfer of O.P. No.539 of 2011 from Family Court, Nedumangad to Family Court, Kollam. That is a petition filed by the respondent-husband for a decree for prohibitory injunction concerning immovable property. It is submitted that respondent has also filed O.P(G&W) No.493 of 2011 in Family Court, Kollam seeking custody of the children. In the meantime petitioner filed M.C. No.93 of 2011 in Family Court, Kollam seeking maintenance. Now two cases are pending in Family Court Kollam while O.P. No.539 of 2011 filed by respondent is pending in Family Court, Nedumangad. Request for transfer is opposed by the learned counsel for respondent stating that respondent is working at Thiruvananthapuram. Petitioner is staying at Madathilazhikom in Kollam District. As aforesaid two of the three cases are pending in Family Court, Killam. It is appropriate and just that all the cases are tried and disposed of by the same court as it will be convenient to all the parties, otherwise, they have to conduct cases in two different courts. O.P(C) No.188 of 2011 -: 2 :- 3. The Supreme Court in Sumitha Singh v. Kumar Sanjay and another (AIR 2002 SC 396) and Arti Rani v. Dharmendra Kumar Gupta ([2008] 9 SCC 353) has stated that while considering request for transfer of matrimonial proceedings convenience of the wife has to be looked into. That of course does not mean that inconvenience of the husband has to be ignored. It is stated that petitioner is residing at Vadakkevila Village, Madathilazhikom Kollam in District and she finds it difficult to travel all the distance from the place of her residence to Nedumangad to contest the case. Having regard to the circumstances stated I am inclined to think that the hardship is comparatively more on petitioner in case request for transfer is not allowed. The inconvenience that may be caused to the respondent can be reduced by permitting him to appear in the transferee court through counsel except when his physical presence is required. Hence I am inclined to allow the petition. Resultantly, the Petition is allowed in the following lines: (a) O.P. No.539 of 2011 pending in Family Court, Nedumangad is withdrawn from O.P(C) No.188 of 2011 -: 3 :- that court and made over to Family Court, Kollam for trial and disposal. (b) The transferor court while transmitting records of the case to the transferee court shall fix the date for appearance of parties in the transferee court with due intimation to the counsel on both sides. (c) Family Court, Kollam shall ensure that O.P. No.539 of 2011 (transferred to it) and O.P(G&W) No.493 of 2011 and M.C. No.93 of 2011 (pending in that court) are posted as far as possible on the same dates. (d) It is made clear that except when physical presence of the respondent in the transferee court is necessary, he can appear through counsel. All pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv