IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH OCTOBER 2011 / 20TH ASWINA 1933 Tr.P(C).No. 306 of 2011() ----------------------------------- OP. 136/2010 OF THE FAMILY COURT , NEDUMANGAD. .......... PETITIONER/IST RESPONDENT --------------------------------------------- PRAVIDYA RANI, W/O.BIJU RAJ, PRATHIBHA NIVAS, UNNIYODE (P.O), KARIPOOR, MALAYINKEEZHU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 571. BY ADV. SRI.GOPAKUMAR R.THALIYAL RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER & 2ND RESPONDENT --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. BIJU RAJ, S/O.RAJENDRAN NAIR, CHIRATHALAKKAL HOUSE, MELAMCODE, PAZHAKUTTY (P.O), NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.695 007. 2. JAYAMOHAN NAIR, PRATHIBHA NIVAS, UNNIYODE (P.O), KARIPOOR, MALAYINKEEZHU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 571. R1 BY ADVS. SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN, SRI.K.SATHEESHKUMAR. THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Tr.P.(C) No.306 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of October, 2011. ORDER This petition is filed by the wife requesting transfer of O.P.No.136 of 2010 from Family Court, Nedumangad to the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. That is a petition filed by the 1st respondent-husband for dissolution of marriage. The 2nd respondent is the father of petitioner. Petitioner states that she has filed M.C.No.100 of 2009 in the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram against the 1st respondent claiming maintenance and that proceeding is pending in the said court. Petitioner is residing at Malayinkeezhu within the territorial limits of the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. It is stated that she has to travel long distance from her place of residence to contest O.P.No.136 of 2010. 2. 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 held that while considering request for transfer of matrimonial proceedings convenience of the wife has to be looked into. True that does not mean that inconvenience if any of the opposite party need not be considered. 3. M.C.No.100 of 2009 filed by petitioner is pending in the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. 1st respondent has to attend that court to contest that case. Petitioner has to travel long distance from her place of residence to Nedumangad. She has to accompanied by somebody which involves expense. Convenience of petitioner, the wife requires that the case is transferred to the Tr.P(C)No.306/2011 2 Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The inconvenience that may be caused to the 1st respondent could be reduced by directing that he need appear in the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram only when his physical presence is required. I am inclined to allow the request for transfer. Resultantly this petition is allowed as follows: (i) O.P.No.136 of 2010 pending in the Family Court, Nedumangad is withdrawn from that court and made over to the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram for trial and disposal. (ii) 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 for both parties. (iii) The transferee court shall post the cases - O.P.No.136 of 2010 (transferred to that court) and M.C.No.100 of 2009 (pending in that court) as far as possible on the same dates. (iv) 1st respondent can appear in the transferee court through counsel except when his physical presence is required. I.A.No.2059 of 2011 will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks