IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN MONDAY, THE 1ST MARCH 2010 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1931 Tr.P(C).No. 366 of 2009() ------------------------------------ OP.272/2008 of FAMILY COURT, KANNUR .................... PETITIONER (S): -------------------- BINDU KUMARI.T.G, AGED 32 YEARS, D/O. THANKAMMA, RESIDING AT KRISHNAVILASAM, THRIKKOVILVATTOM MUKHATHALA.P.O, KOLLAM. BY ADVS.MR.THOMAS ABRAHAM MR.DIPU.R SMT.MERCIAMMA MATHEW MR.K.S.HARIDAS MR.V.RENJITH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- PRAMOD.O.V, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.K.P. NARAYANAN NAMBIAR, RESIDING AT MAVILA HOUSE, (ODAYATHU VALIYAVEEDU), CHIRAKKAL.P.O, KANNUR, NOW WORKING AT MASTERS PVT. LTD., TIE A -8, BALANAGAR, HYDRABAD. THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss P. BHAVADASAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Tr.P.(C). No. 366 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 1st day of March, 2010. ORDER This is a petition filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking transfer of O.P.272 of 2008 pending before the Family Court, Kannur to the Family Court, Kollam, where O.P.478 of 2008 between the same parties is pending. 2. Marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 12.5.1999 at Kollam. They took up residence in the matrimonial house. Later difference of opinion arose between them. A male child was born to the couple. Suffice it to say, ultimately, the petitioner has filed O.P.478 of 2008 for restitution of conjugal rights. It is unnecessary to go into the various other matters, as they are irrelevant for the present purpose. Tr.P.(C). 366/2009. 2 3. According to the petitioner, she is residing at Kollam and the continuance of the case at Kollam will cause considerable inconvenience to her, and there is no inconvenience for the respondent to attend the Family Court at Kollam especially when the petition filed by her is pending before that court. Petitioner points out that she has filed O.P.478 of 2008 for restitution of conjugal rights and she is desirous of continuing the relationship. It is pointed out O.P.272 of 2008 was filed before the Family Court, Kannur with the sole intention of harassing and causing inconvenience to the petitioner. 4. Notice was served on the respondent. None appears for him. 5. It is seen that there is already a case pending before the Family Court, Kollam, which was instituted by the petitioner. From the address given in the petition, it is seen that the respondent is employed at Hyderabad. Petitioner has detailed her various difficulties and inconveniences in attending the court at Kannur. It is also contended that Tr.P.(C). 366/2009. 3 since the marriage took place in Kollam, Family Court, Kollam has the jurisdiction to try the matter. In the light of the various facts stated in the petition regarding the difficulties of the petitioner in attending the court at Kannur, it is felt that it is only just and proper that relief be granted to the petitioner. In the result, this petition is allowed and O.P.272 of 2008 pending before the Family Court, Kannur is transferred to Family Court, Kollam. P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sb.