IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 26TH OCTOBER 2010 / 4TH KARTHIKA 1932 TR.P(C).NO. 297 OF 2010() ------------------------------------- OP.944/2010 OF FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM .................... PETITIONER: -------------------- SUJA, AGED 36 YEARS, D/O.GANGADHARAN, CHEMBARATHIL VEEDU, NEELIKULAM, K.S.PURAM, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI. K.SIJU SMT.BINDU GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- VINAYACHANDRAN, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.SREEDHARAN, MUPPATHILCHIRA VEEDU, THIRUVARPPU P.O., THIRUVARPPU, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT- 686033. THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Tr.P(C) No.297 of 2010 ==================================== Dated this the 26th day of October, 2010 O R D E R Respondent though served on this petition he remains absent. 2. This petition is for transfer of O.P. No.944 of 2010 from Family Court, Kottayam, at Ettumanoor to Family Court, Kollam. That is a petition filed by the respondent seeking restitution of conjugal rights. According to the petitioner, she has filed O.P. No.663 of 2010 in Family Court, Kollam seeking divorce and it is thereafter that respondent has chosen to file O.P. No.944 of 2010. Petitioner states that she is residing at Karunagappally which is 100 kms away from Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor and she is unable to travel all the distance from that place to Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor. 3. 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 Tr.P(C) No.297 of 2010 -: 2 :- proceedings convenience of the wife has to be looked into. That of course does not mean that inconvenience of the husband has to be ignored. It is not disputed that O.P No. 663 of 2010 filed by the petitioner is now pending in Family Court, Kollam. Respondent has not so far requested for transfer of that case. Petitioner contends that if the cases are pending in two courts it will be inconvenient for both parties and in that circumstance also it is only just and proper that cases are tried and disposed of by the same court. It is also stated that petitioner has to travel the distance of about 100 kms from her place of residence to Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor to contest the case. The comparative hardship is more on the petitioner if the request for transfer is not allowed than the inconvenience that may be caused to the respondent if transfer is ordered. Hence I am inclined to allow this petition. Resultantly, petition is allowed in the following lines: (i) O.P. No.944 of 2010 pending in Family Court, Kottayam, at Ettumanoor is withdrawn from that court and transferred to Family Court, Kollam. Tr.P(C) No.297 of 2010 -: 3 :- (ii) The transferor court while transmitting records of the case to the transferee court shall fix 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 O.P. No.944 of 2010 (transferred case) and O.P. No.663 of 2010 (pending in that court) are posted on the same dates, as far as possible. (iv) It is made clear that except when physical presence of respondent in court is necessary he can appear through counsel. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv