IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2011 / 10TH CHAITHRA 1933 Tr.P(C).No. 29 of 2011() ------------------------ OP.1102/2010 of FAMILY COURT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM .................... PETITIONER ------------------ K.S.SARITHA, KRISHNA NIVAS, KARUKODI, VADAKKANTHARA, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SMT.P.K.RADHIKA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- AJISH K.B., S/O.K.C.BHASKARAN, KAKKANNI, KALLEKULANGARA P.O., PALAKKAD. ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM K.JOHN SMT.DIVYA K.NAIR THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------ Tr.P(C).No.29 OF 2011 ------------------------------ Dated this the 31 st day of March, 2011 ORDER The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent took place on 19.5.2010 at Palakkad. Both the parties belong to Palakkad. The respondent/husband is working at Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioner is a research scholar and she is doing her research work at Coimbatore. 2. The respondent filed O.P No.1102 of 2010 before the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram to declare the marriage between the parties as null and void. The prayer made by the petitioner in this Transfer Petition is to transfer O.P.No.1102 of 2010 from the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram to the Family Court, Palakkad. Tr.P(C).No.29 OF 2011 2 3.The application is opposed by the respondent. In the objection filed by the respondent, it is stated that the petitioner and her relatives are highly influential and they are capable to do any atrocity against the respondent. The brother of the petitioner threatened the respondent that he will be taught a lesson after getting the case transferred to the Family Court, Palakkad. The respondent apprehends danger to his life if he were to attend the Family Court, Palakkad. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no such threat was made to the respondent. It is submitted that the petitioner undertakes that she and her relatives would not indulge in any activity to cause inconvenience to the respondent if he appears before the Family Tr.P(C).No.29 OF 2011 3 Court, Palakkad. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner would have to travel more than 8 hours from Palakkad to Thiruvananthapuram if she were to attend the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. On the other hand, it is submitted, the respondent would not be put to that much hardship if the case is transferred from Thiruvananthapuram to Palakkad. 6. 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. Tr.P(C).No.29 OF 2011 4 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case mentioned above, I am of the view that the request for transfer is to be allowed. Accordingly, the Transfer Petition is allowed as follows: i) O.P No.1102 of 2010 pending before the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram shall stand transferred to the Family Court, Palakkad. The Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram shall transmit the records of the case to the Family Court, Palakkad. ii) The Family Court, Palakkad need insist the personal appearance of the respondent only if it is absolutely necessary. Tr.P(C).No.29 OF 2011 5 iii)The petitioner undertakes that she and her relatives would not indulge in any activity to cause inconvenience or threat to the petitioner when he attends the Family Court, Palakkad. The parties shall appear before the Family Court, Palakkad on 25 th May, 2011. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE. cms