IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 6TH JUNE 2011 / 16TH JYAISHTA 1933 Tr.P(C).No. 120 of 2011() ------------------------- OP.781/2010 of FAMILY COURT,KOZHIKODE .................... PETITIONER/RESPONDENT :- ----------------------------------------- HALEEMA, D/O.ABOOBACKER, KOOTAL KUZHIMADU, P.O.THENJIPPALAM (VIA) CHELARI, CHELARI AMSOM DESOM, ERANAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN SRI.HANSON P. MATHEW RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER :- --------------------------------------------- P.JAFAR, S/O.ABDULLA, THACHOLI VAYALIL KUNIYIL, P.O.MADAPPALLY COLLEGE, OORALUNKAL AMSOM DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT- 673 102. THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/06/2011 ALONG WITH Tr.P(C).No.121 OF 2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: jvt K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------ Tr.P(C)Nos.120 & 121 OF 2011 ------------------------------ Dated this the 6th day of June, 2011 ORDER These Transfer Petitions are filed by Haleema, the wife of the respondent for transfer of OP Nos.781 of 2010 and 257 of 2011 from the Family Court, Vadakara to the Family Court, Malappuram, where OP No.993 of 2010 is pending. 2. The respondent filed OP No.781 of 2010 against the petitioner for restitution of conjugal rights. He also filed OP No.257 of 2011 for custody of the child. Both these cases are pending before the Family Court, Vadakara. The petitioner filed OP No.993 of 2010 before the Family Court, Malappuram against the respondent for return of gold ornaments. 3. The petitioner says that she is residing at Tenjippalam in Malappuram District and it is very difficult for her to travel to Vadakara to attend the Family Court. She says that she has to maintain a child who is of only 10 months of age. The petitioner Tr.P(C)No.120 & 121 OF 2011 2 also says that her parents are aged and sick. 4. Though notice was served on the respondent, there is no appearance for him. 5. The Supreme Court in Sumitha Singh v. Kumar Sanjay and another ((2001) 10 SCC 41), Mangla Patil Kale v. Sanjeev Kumar Kale ((2003)10 SCC 280) and Rajwinder Kaur v. Balwinder Singh ((2003)11 SCC 726) held that the inconvenience caused to the wife, if no transfer is made, should be taken note of. 6. At any rate, the respondent has to appear before the Family Court, Malappuram in OP No.993 of 2010. If all the three cases are tried before two different Family Courts, it would cause inconvenience to both parties. To suit the general convenience of the parties, it would be ideal if all the cases are tried by the same Family Court. In the facts and circumstances mentioned above, it is only proper to transfer the cases pending before the Family Tr.P(C)No.120 & 121 OF 2011 3 Court, Vadakara to the Family Court, Malappuram. Accordingly, the Transfer Petitions are allowed. OP Nos.781 of 2010 and 257 of 2011 pending before the Family Court, Vadakara shall stand transferred to the Family Court, Malappuram. The Family Court, Vadakara shall transmit the records of the aforesaid cases to the Family Court, Malappuram. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE. cms