IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 12TH OCTOBER 2010 / 20TH ASWINA 1932 Tr.P(C).No. 262 of 2010() ------------------------- OP.873/2010 of FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM AT ETTUMANOOR .................... PETITIONER/RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------- RAJESWARI R.R.NAIR (20) D/O.RAJAN, RAJI NIVAS, PUNNACKAMUGAL, ARAMADA.P.O., THIRUMALA, TRIVANDRUM. NOW RESIDING AT C/O.L.KUMAR, SREEVALSAM, PUTHIYAKAVU, THRIPUNITHURA.P.O., ERNAKULAM-682 301. BY ADV. SRI.SUBAL J.PAUL SMT.SHEEBA SUBAL RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------- ANIL KUMAR (32), S/O.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, EDAKATTU NANDAVANAM, ETTUMANOOR.P.O., KOTTAYAM, PIN-686 631. THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Tr.P.(C) No.262 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of October, 2010. ORDER Respondent inspite of service of notice remained absent. I have heard counsel for petitioner. 2. Petitioner/wife has filed this petition seeking transfer of O.P.No.873 of 2010 of Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor to Family Court, Ernakulam. It is stated that though permanent residence of petitioner is at Thiruvananthapuram she is presently residing with her uncle at Ernakulam. She has filed three cases (O.P.Nos.1139 of 2010 and 1440 of 2010 and M.C.No.231 of 2010) against respondent/husband in the Family Court, Ernakulam. Petitioner states that it will be convenient for both parties if the cases are tried and disposed of together. 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. True that does not mean that inconvenience if any of the husband need not be considered. It is seen from the petition that respondent is residing at Ettumanoor, in Kottayam District. It is not disputed that three cases Tr.P.(C) No.262/2010 2 filed by petitioner/wife are pending in Family Court, Ernakulam. Respondent has not so far sought transfer of those cases to Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor for any reason whatsoever. Petitioner/wife is staying at Ernakulam and if the cases continued at Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor, she has to travel a long distance. She may have to be accompanied by some relatives which involves expense. Moreover three cases are pending in Family Court, Ernakulam. It is necessary that all the cases are consolidated in the same court for a proper decision of the cases. Considering the hardship of petitioner and the circumstances stated above, I am inclined to allow this petition. Resultantly this petition is allowed in the following lines: i. O.P. No.873 of 2010 of Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor is withdrawn from that court and made over to Family Court, Ernakulam for trial and disposal. ii. The transferor court shall, while transmitting records of the case to the transferee court fix the date for appearance of parties in the transferee court with due intimation to the counsel on both sides. Tr.P.(C) No.262/2010 3 iii. Transferee court shall ensure that as far as possible all the cases are posted on the same dates. I.A.No.2139 of 2010 will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks