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. 122 of 2011() ------------------------- OP.1459/2010 of FAMILY COURT, NEDUMANGAD .................... PETITIONER (S): -------------------- ROOPA G.S. D/O.SALEENA, AGED 27 YEARS NOOPURA HOUSE ERUVAIKONAM, MULLUVILA P.O. NEYYATTINKARA THALUK, PIN 695133. BY ADV. SMT.K.T.LILLY @ LILLY JAMES SMT.P.F.ROSY RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- BINULAL.K., AGED 37 YEARS S/O.KUTTAN, DEEPA BHAVAN CHEMPANCODE, AMBALATHUMKALA P.O. KATTAKKADA, NEYYATTINKARA THALUK PIN 695572. ADV. SRI.A.RAJASIMHAN FOR R1 THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. -------------------------------------- Tr.P.(C).No.122 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of June, 2011 O R D E R The petitioner seeks transfer of O.P.No.1459 of 2010 pending before the Family Court, Nedumangad to the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram where O.P.(G&W) No.26 of 2011 is pending. 2. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent took place on 7.9.2008 at Neyyattinkara. The respondent is working as a Head Constable in Police Telecommunication Department at Thiruvananthapuram. He filed O.P.No.1459 of 2010 before the Family Court, Nedumangad against the petitioner for restitution of conjugal rights. He also filed O.P.(G&W) No.26 of 2011 before the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram against the petitioner for custody of the child. Both these cases are Tr.P.(C) No.122/2011 2 pending. 3. While the petitioner says that O.P.No.1459 of 2010 is to be transferred to the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram, the respondent says that it is not necessary to do so. The respondent has not filed an application for transfer of the case from the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram to the Family Court, Nedumangad. He filed two cases before the two different Family Courts. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that the Family Court, Nedumangad as well as the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram have jurisdiction in respect of both the cases. 4. The petitioner says that the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram is nearer to her place of residence and that she has to travel 51 km. in order to attend the Family Court, Nedumangad. The respondent disputes this statement. Tr.P.(C) No.122/2011 3 According to him, the distance to both the courts is almost equal. According to him, the Family Court, Nedumangad is nearer to the place of residence of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the respondent also submitted that if a mediation is conducted and the parties are directed to appear before the mediator, the case would be settled. The learned counsel for the petitioner has no objection for settling the case. It is stated that counselling before the Family Court would be ideal for that purpose. The learned counsel for the respondent pointed out that in the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram counselling is not resorted to in all cases. 5. The respondent is working at Thiruvananthapuram. Therefore, it would not be difficult for him to attend the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. Whatever may be the distance and the dispute regarding distance, both the courts are having jurisdiction. Therefore, to suit the general convenience of the parties, it would be ideal if both the cases are tried together by Tr.P.(C) No.122/2011 4 the same Family Court. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I think it would be better to transfer O.P.No.1459 of 2010 to the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. 6. Accordingly, the Transfer Petition is allowed and O.P.No.1459 of 2010 is transferred from the Family Court, Nedumangad to the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The Family Court, Nedumangad shall transmit the records to the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The parties shall appear before the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram on 4th July, 2011. The Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram shall direct the parties to appear for counselling, before taking up the case for trial. K.T.SANKARAN JUDGE csl