IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 17TH BHADRA 1932 TR.P(C).NO. 233 OF 2009() ------------------------------------- OP.127/2009 OF FAMILY COURT,THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER/RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------- REKHA P., AGED 26 YEARS, PALLIPARAMBIL HOUSE, P.O.GOTHURUTHI, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.MANSOOR.B.H. RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------------------------------ ABI MATHEW, KOTTEKADAN HOUSE, P.O.EAST FORT, THRISSUR. ADV. SRI.P.K.ANIL FOR R THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Tr.P(C) No.233 of 2010 ==================================== Dated this the 08th day of September, 2010 O R D E R Petitioner, according to her had a love affair with respondent which united then in the wedlock on 04.06.2008 but not to last for long. Respondent-husband came with a case that brother of petitioner with some others coerced and threatened him to sign some papers and forcibly took him to the Registrar's office where a marriage was conducted which according to him is not valid in the eye of law. He filed O.P. No.127 of 2009 in Family Court, Thrissur for a declaration that the marriage is null and void. Petitioner, a resident of North Paravur and engaged as a sales girl in a jewellery shop at that place has come to this Court requesting transfer of the case to Family Court, Ernakulam. Apart from the inconvenience she allegedly has to suffer on account of her having to contest the case in Family Court, Thrissur she also apprehends threat from relatives of respondent. Learned counsel has invited my attention to the averments in paragraphs 7 and 8 of Ext.P1, copy of O.P. No.127 of 2009. Respondent has stated the circumstances under which the marriage was solemnised. Tr.P(C) No.233 of 2009 -: 2 :- Learned counsel for respondent opposed the application contending that within the same time petitioner can reach Ernakulam she can reach Family Court, Thrissur from her place of residence. Allegation regarding threat is incorrect and made for the purpose of facilitating transfer of the case to Family Court, Ernakulam. Learned counsel raised an apprehension that since Family Court, Ernakulam is flooded with cases if O.P. No.127 of 2009 is transferred to that court it is not likely to be decided in the near future. 2. 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 not disputed that petitioner-wife is residing at North Paravur. From that place distance to Thrissur is around 40 kms while distance from North Paravur to Ernakulam is only about 18 kms. Added to that there is the fact that petitioner is working as a sales girl at North Paravur. In the circumstances convenience of petitioner requires that the case is brought down Tr.P(C) No.233 of 2009 -: 3 :- to Family Court, Ernakulam. Such a course will not cause much inconvenience to the respondent since he is a resident of Thrissur and without much difficulty he can come to Ernakulam since there is sufficient travelling facility either by road or rail. Having regard to the comparative hardship which the parties will be put in case request for transfer is allowed or disallowed I am inclined to hold that the hardship on the petitioner is more. 3. So far as the request of respondent for early disposal of the case is concerned I make it clear that it will be open to the respondent to request Judge of Family Court, Ernakulam to dispose of the petition as expeditiously as possible since the Original Petition is of the year 2009. Resultantly, petition is allowed in the following lines: (i) O.P. No.127 of 2009 pending in Family Court, Thrissur is withdrawn from that court and made over to Family Court, Ernakulam. (ii) The transferor court while transmitting records of the case to the transferee court shall fix Tr.P(C) No.233 of 2009 -: 4 :- date for appearance of parties in the transferee court with due intimation to the counsel for both parties. (iii) It is made clear that except when physical presence of respondent in court is necessary he can appear through counsel. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. sv