IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 2ND AUGUST 2010 / 11TH SRAVANA 1932 Tr.P(C).No. 361 of 2009() ------------------------- OP.1293/2008 of FAMILY COURT,THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER ------------------------------ RINCY LAWRANCE, AGED 33 YEARS, D/O. P.T.LAWRANCE PALAKKAL HOUSE, PATTALAM ROAD, NEAR DPQ QUARTERS 1/880 RADES DALE, FORT KOCHI ERNAKULM. REPRESENTED BY HER FATHER AND POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI. P.T.LAWRANCE. BY ADV. SRI.JOSEPH A.VADAKKEL SRI.GEORGE KARITHANAM VARGHESE SRI.JOSE KURIAKOSE (VILANGATTIL) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- VINODH DAVIS, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O. DAVIS, CHOVALLOOKKARAN HOUSE, VELAYANADU.P.O., KOTTANELLUR, VELOORKARA, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Tr.P.(C) No.361 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of August, 2010. ORDER This petition is filed by the wife seeking transfer of O.P. No.1293 of 2008 from Family Court, Thrissur to Family Court, Ernakulam. That is a petition filed by the respondent seeking divorce. In the meantime petitioner has filed a petition before Family Court, Ernakulam claiming maintenance for her minor daughter aged about two years. Petitioner states that she is a resident of Fort Kochi and that it is inconvenient to her to contest the case at Family Court, Thrissur. Learned counsel in the circumstances requested that O.P.No.1293 of 2008 may be transferred from Family Court, Thrissur to Family Court, Ernakulam. 2. Petition is opposed by respondent. It is contended that both parties are working abroad and are represented by power of attorney holders. It is contended that power of attorney holder of respondent is a widow and if the case is transferred to Family Court, Ernakulam it will be inconvenient to her. It is also contended that there is no reason to transfer the case. 3. It is not disputed that both parties are working abroad and are represented by power of attorney holders. Learned counsel for petitioner has a contention that respondent engaged a power of attorney holder only after filing this transfer petition to defeat this petition on the ground that his power of attorney holder is a widow. Fact remained that petition filed by petitioner T.P.(C) No.361/2009 2 claiming maintenance for her minor child is pending before Family Court, Ernakulam. Respondent has not so far requested for transfer of that case to Family Court, Thrissur. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering all relevant aspects I am inclined to allow this petition. Resultantly this petition is allowed in the following lines: i. O.P. No.1293 of 2008 pending in Family Court, Thrissur is withdrawn from that court and made over to Family Court, Ernakulam for trial and disposal. ii. It is made clear that except when the physical presence of parties is required in the transferee court it is open to them to appear through counsel. iii. The transferor court shall, while transmitting records of the case to the transferee court fix date for appearance of parties in the transferee court with due intimation to the counsel on both sides. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks