IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 14TH OCTOBER 2010 / 22ND ASWINA 1932 Tr.P(C).No. 87 of 2009() ------------------------ OP(G&W).93/2009 & OP(HMA).94/2009 of FAMILY COURT, ALAPPUZHA .................... PETITIONER ------------------------------ SREELEKHA DEVI.L, D/O.LEELA KUMARI, SREEKALA BHAVAN, PUTHIYIDAM, PANGAPPARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SMT.BEENA JOHN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- K.ASOK KUMAR, S/O.KRISNA PILLAI, THURUTHIYIL VEETTIL, VENMONY, CHENGANNUR VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.VINOY VARGHESE KALLUMOOTTILL THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Tr.P.(C) No.87 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of October, 2010. ORDER This petition is filed by the wife seeking transfer of O.P.(G&W) No.93 and O.P.(HMA) No.94 of 2009 from Family Court, Alappuzha to Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. It is stated that petitioner is residing at Pangappara, in Thiruvananthapuram District and that she has filed O.P.1109 of 2008 and M.C.No.194 of 2008 in Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram, the former for dissolution of marriage and recovery of ornaments, etc. and the latter, claiming maintenance from the respondent/husband. It is stated that respondent though residing at Venmony, in Chengannur Taluk is working abroad. In the circumstances, the request for transfer. Petition is opposed by the respondent. According to the learned counsel there is no reason to transfer the case. 2. It is not disputed that petitioner is a resident of Pangappara, in Thiruvananthapuram District. True, respondent/husband belongs to Venmony, in Chengannur Taluk. But it is not disputed that two cases initiated by petitioner are pending consideration in Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. If O.P.(G&W) No.93 of 2009 and O.P.(HMA) No.94 of 2009 continued to be at Family Court, Alappuzha petitioner has to travel a long distance from Pangappara, in Thiruvananthapuram District to Alappuzha. She may have to be accompanied by some relatives which involves expense. Moreover, parties have Tr.P.(C) No.87/2009 2 to fight the cases in two courts. Respondent has not also so far requested for transfer of the cases pending in Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. 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. 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 allowed this petition. Resultantly this petition is allowed in the following lines: (i) O.P. (G&W)No.93 of 2009 and O.P(HMA) No.94 of 2009 pending in Family Court, Alappuzha are withdrawn from that court and transferred to Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram for trial and disposal. (ii) The transferor court while transmitting records of the cases to the transferee court shall fix the date for appearance of parties in the transferee court with due intimation to the counsel for both parties. (iii) The transferee court shall ensure that all the cases are posted on the same dates, as far as possible. Tr.P.(C) No.87/2009 3 (iv) It is made clear that except when physical presence of respondent in court is necessary he can appear through counsel. I.A.No.722 & 2791 of 2009 will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks