IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 11TH OCTOBER 2010 / 19TH ASWINA 1932 Tr.P(C).No. 313 of 2010() ------------------------- OP.494/2010 of FAMILY COURT, KOTTARAKKARA .................... PETITIONER (S): -------------------- 1. A.M.ABDUL RAFEEQ, S/O.ABDUL RAZACK, AGED 38 YEARS, 'WINSOM', KURICHIYIL, PUNNOL, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. NANGATHAN RABIA, W/O.ABDUL RAZACK, AGED 65 YEARS, 'WINSOM', KURICHIYIL, PUNNOL, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. FOUSIYA, W/O.KASIM, AGED 45 YEARS, 'WINSOM', KURICHIYIL, PUNNOL, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT. 4. MISRIYA, W/O.ASHRAF, AGED 39 YEARS, 'WINSOM', KURICHIYIL, PUNNOL, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT. 5. ASHRAF, AGED 45 YEARS, 'WINSOM', KURICHIYIL, PUNNOL, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.PAREETH SRI.MOHAMMED SHAMEEL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- SMITHA MUHAMMED, D/O.MUHAMMED KHANI, DARBHAVILA VEEDU, TB JUNCTION, VALAKKOD, PUNALOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT 691 305. THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Tr.P.(C) No.313 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of October, 2010. ORDER This petition is filed by the husband of respondent and his relatives for transfer of O.P.No.494 of 2010 from Family Court, Kottarakkara to Family Court, Kannur. That is a petition filed by respondent/wife for return of gold ornaments and other reliefs. Certain allegations are made against petitioner Nos.1 and 2 regarding physical harassment on respondent. First petitioner is working abroad, petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are women, petitioner No.2 is aged and ill and petitioner No.5 is engaged in business at Bangalore. Hence it is not possible for petitioners to conduct the case at Family Court, Kottarakkara. In the meantime respondent filed O.S.No.356 of 2008 in the court of learned Sub Judge, Thalassery seeking partition of immovable property and hence request for transfer. Learned counsel states that petitioner Nos.2 to 5 are unnecessarily made parties to the case and are impleaded in the case only to harass them and to coerce petitioner No.1 to agree to the demands made by the respondent. 2. So far as petitioner No.1 is concerned he is working abroad and so far as petitioner Nos.2 to 5 are concerned, it is not as if their physical presence is required every now and then in the Family Court, Kottarakkara. They can either engage a power of attorney holder or they need appear in the Family Court, Tr.P.(C) No.313/2010 2 Kottarakkara only when their physical presence is required. There fact that respondent has filed O.S.No.356 of 2008 in the Sub Court, Thalassery concerning immovable property situated within the jurisdiction of that court is not a ground to transfer the case from Family Court, Kottarakkara to Family Court, Kannur. Respondent is a resident of Punalur, in Kollam District which is an interior part of Kollam District and she has to travel from Punalur to Kollam by bus if she were travel by train to Kannur or she has to go by bus from Punalur to Kannur, a very tedious and long journey. 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. It is true that petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are women and petitioner No.2 according to petitioners is aged and ill. Petitioner No.5 is stated to be engaged in business at Bangalore. Their inconvenience in going to Family Court, Kottarakkara can be lessened by directing that they need appear in that court only when their physical presence is required. If examination of any of the women who are unable to travel is required it is open to them to request the Presiding Officer of Family Court, Kottarakkara to examine them on commission if circumstances justified that. Tr.P.(C) No.313/2010 3 Resultantly this petition is dismissed. But I make it clear that petitioner Nos.2 to 5 can appear in Family Court, Kottarakkara through counsel except when their physical presence is required and so far as such of the women who are unable to travel and their examination in Family Court, Kottarakkara is found necessary, it is open to them to request the Presiding Officer to examine them on commission if circumstances justified that. I.A.No.2506 of 2010 will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks