IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH AUGUST 2011 / 2ND BHADRA 1933 Tr.P(C).No. 245 of 2011() ------------------------------------- OP.889/2010 of FAMILY COURT, KOTTARAKKARA .................... PETITIONER: -------------------- VINEETHA MOL, D/O.SAHADEVAN, AGED 28 YEARS, MUROORKONAM VILAYIL VEEDU, ALAMTHARA, NELLANADU VILLAGE, VENJARAMOODU, NEDUMANGAD. BY ADV. SRI.SREEKANTH S.NAIR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ MANOJ KUMAR, S/O.PODIYAN, AGED 37 YEARS LAB ASSISTANT GOVT V.H.S.S.PIRAPPANCODE, RESIDING AT NISHA NIVAS, KADUVAPPARA,KOKKAD PO, VETTIKAVALA, CHAKKUVARAKKAL VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA 691 538. ADV. SRI.J.JAYAKUMAR FOR R1 THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/08/2011 ALONG WITH TR.P(C) NO.246 OF 2011 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: TR.P(C) NO.245 OF 2011 APPENDIX --------------- PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: ---------------------------------- ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF O.P. NO.889 OF 2010 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, KOTTARAKKARA. ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE M.C. NO.68 OF 2010 BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-I, NEDUMANGAD. ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF O.P. NO.1113 OF 2010 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, KOTTARAKKARA. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: ----------------------------------- NIL TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Tr.P(C) Nos.245 & 246 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 24th day of August, 2011 J U D G M E N T In both the proceedings respondent was served but there is no response. 2. These proceedings are for transfer of O.P. Nos.889 of 2011 and 1113 of 2010 from Family Court, Kottarakkara to Family Court, Nedumanagad. O.P. No.889 is filed by the respondent seeking divorce while O.P. No.1113 of 2010 is filed by the petitioner-wife for recovery of money and other reliefs. Petitioner- wife has also filed M.C. No.68 of 2010 in the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Nedumangad against the respondent seeking maintenance. It is stated that petitioner, aged 28 years finds it difficult to travel all the distance from her place of residence to Family Court, Kottarakkara to contest the case. Hence the request for transfer. 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 proceedings convenience of the wife has to be looked into. That Tr.P(C) Nos.245 & 246 of 2011 -: 2 :- of course does not mean that inconvenience of the husband has to be ignored. Petitioner-wife aged 28 years is a resident of Venjaramoodu, which is within the territorial jurisdiction of Family Court, Nedumangad. Petitioner has to travel long distance from her place of residence to Family Court, Kottarakkara to contest the case. Petitioner is the only daughter of her sick parents and there is nobody to accompany her to Family Court, Kottarakkara. It is not disputed that in connection with M.C. No.68 of 2010 respondent has to attend the court of learned Judicial First class Magistrate-I, Nedumangad. Having regard to the circumstances stated I am inclined to think that the hardship is more on petitioner if the request for transfer is not allowed. The inconvenience that may be caused to respondent can be reduced by permitting him to appear in the transferee court through counsel except when his physical presence is required. Hence I am inclined to allow the petition. Resultantly, the Petitions are allowed in the following lines: (a) O.P. Nos.889 of 2010 and 1113 of 2010 pending in Family Court, Kottarakkara are withdrawn from that court and made over to Tr.P(C) Nos.245 & 246 of 2011 -: 3 :- Family Court, Nedumangad for trial and disposal. (b) The transferor court while transmitting records of the case to the transferee court shall fix the date for appearance of parties in the transferee court with due intimation to the counsel on both sides. (c) Family Court, Nedumangad shall ensure that O.P. Nos.889 of 2010 and 1113 of 2010 (transferred to it) are posted as far as possible on the same dates. (d) It is made clear that except when physical presence of respondent in the transferee court is necessary, he can appear through counsel. All pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv