IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 24TH OCTOBER 2011 / 2ND KARTHIKA 1933 Tr.P(C).No. 271 of 2011 -------------------------------- [O.P.NO.645/2011 OF FAMILY COURT, NEDUMANGAD] .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- ROJA C.S, T.C.8/284/(1) PUTHENKADA JUNCTION, THIRUMALA P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.UNNIKRISHNAN. RESPONDENT: ---------------------- SABU.R, CHOONDA, KARIKKAKATHU ROADARIKATHU VEEDU, VALIYATHANNIMOODU, PACHA, PALUVALLY P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 562. BY THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: TR.P.(C).NO.271/2011: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:- ANNEXURE I: COPY OF THE O.P.1083/11 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ANNEXURE II: COPY OF THE O.P.645/11 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, NEDUMANGAD. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Prv. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Tr.P(C) No.271 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 24th day of October, 2011 O R D E R Notice to the respondent is declared as duly served as per order dated 24.10.2011 on I.A. No.2250 of 2011. 2. This petition is for transfer of O.P. No.645 of 2011 from the Family Court, Nedumangad to the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. That is a petition filed by the respondent- husband for restitution of conjugal rights. Petitioner filed O.P. No.1083 of 2011 in the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram for a declaration that the marriage between her and the respondent is null and void. Petitioner states that she is residing at Thirumala in Thiruvananthapuram District, she has to look after her child aged about 2 years and she finds it difficult to travel all the distance from her place of residence to Nedumangad to contest the case. It is also stated that since respondent has filed petition for restitution of conjugal rights and petitioner has filed petition seeking declaration that the marriage is null and void it is necessary that both the cases are tried and disposed of by the same court to avoid divergent findings. Tr.P(C) No.271 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 the 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. Since the petition filed by the respondent is for restitution of conjugal rights and petition filed by the petitioner is for a declaration that the marriage between herself and respondent is null and void it is necessary that both the cases are tried and disposed of by the same court. Respondent is residing at Pacha in Thiruvananthapuram District. Having regard to the circumstances stated I am inclined to think that if transfer is not allowed petitioner will be put to much hardship and inconvenience. The inconvenience if any of the respondent can be reduced by permitting him to appear in the transferee court through counsel except when his physical presence is required. I am inclined to allow the petition. Resultantly, the Petition is allowed as follows: (a) O.P. No.645 of 2011 pending in the Tr.P(C) No.271 of 2011 -: 3 :- Family Court, Nedumangad is withdrawn from that court and made over to the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram 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, Thiruvananthapuram shall ensure that O.P. No.645 of 2011 (transferred to it) and O.P. No.1083 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 respondent in the transferee court is necessary, he can appear through counsel. All pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv