IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH JUNE 2011 / 8TH ASHADHA 1933 Tr.P(C).No. 149 of 2011() ------------------------- OP.1690/2009 OF FAMILY COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER : -------------------- MERIN MATHEW T. @ SIMI, AGED 27 YEARS, W/O. MATHEW JOSEPH, THEKKEKAITHAVANA, TC 19/1973, POOJAPPURA, MUDAVANMUGHAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-12. BY ADV. SMT.LEKHA SURESH SRI.ASHOK SURESH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- MATHEW JOSEPH P. @ BABU, AGED 34, S/O. LATE JOSEPH MATHEW, POTTAMGULANGARA HOUSE, COCHIN UNIVERSITY ROAD, COCHIN UNIVERSITY P.O., SOUTH KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM, PIN 682 024. THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------ Tr.P.(C).No.149 of 2011 ------------------------------ Dated this the 29th day of June, 2011 O R D E R The prayer in the Transfer Petition is to transfer O.P.No.1690 of 2009 pending before the Family Court, Ernakulam to the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. 2. The petitioner is the wife of the respondent. They are living separately. It is stated that the marriage between the parties took place at Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioner belongs to Thiruvananthapuram. She was residing with her parents at Thiruvananthapuram. The father of the petitioner, who was working in the Reserve Bank of India, was transferred to Ernakulam. Thereafter, the petitioner also shifted her residence and she was staying with her father at the Reserve Bank of India Officers Quarters at Ernakulam. O.P.No.1690 of 2009 was filed by the petitioner before the Family Court, Ernakulam while she was residing at Ernakulam. It is stated Tr.P.(C) No.149/2011 2 that the petitioner's father has been now transferred to Thiruvananthapuram and thereupon the petitioner has also shifted her residence to Thiruvananthapuram. 3. The petitioner states that she is unable to appear before the Family Court, Ernakulam. O.P.No.1690 of 2009 was filed by her before the Family Court, Ernakulam against the respondent for an injunction restraining the respondent from forcibly taking away the minor children from the custody of the petitioner. It is stated that the respondent once took away the elder child, aged four years now, and left the child only after a few days. It is also stated that the respondent forcibly entered into the Reserve Bank of India Quarters on 29.11.2009 without permission and created violent scenes at the place. According to the petitioner, the respondent is a very influential person and he has a goonda gang at his command. In these circumstances, the petitioner says that she is not in a position to appear before the Family Court, Ernakulam. 4. Though the respondent was served with notice, there is Tr.P.(C) No.149/2011 3 no appearance for him. 5. The Supreme Court in Sumita Singh vs. Kumar Sanjay and another (2001 (10) SCC 41), Rajwinder Kaur vs. Balwinder Singh (2003(11) SCC 726) and Mangla Patil Kale vs. Sanjeev Kumar Kale (2003(10) SCC 280) held that the inconvenience caused to the wife, if no transfer is made, should be taken note of. 6. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and the hardship that would be caused to the petitioner if the case is not transferred from the Family Court, Ernakulam, I am of the view that the Transfer Petition is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, the Transfer Petition is allowed. O.P.No.1690 of 2009 pending before the Family Court, Ernakulam is transferred to the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The Family Court, Ernakulam shall transmit the records of the case to the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. K.T.SANKARAN JUDGE csl