IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 27TH OCTOBER 2011 / 5TH KARTHIKA 1933 Tr.P(C).No. 321 of 2011() ----------------------------------- OP(HMA). NO.905/2011 OF FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM TO FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM. .................... PETITIONER ------------------- SOUMYA V.B., AGED 24 YEARS, W/O.SHYJU, D/O.BHARATHAN, VELOOR HOUSE, CHERAI P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.N.SURESH RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- SHYJU S.NAIR, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.SREEDHARAN NAIR, PUNNAKKAL HOUSE, PLASSANNAL P.O., PANICKAMALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, 686 324. THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs Tr.P(C).No. 321 of 2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:- ANNEXURE A1: COPY OF THE O.P. NO. 991/2011 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM. ANNEXURE A2: COPY OF THE O.P. NO. 905/2011 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM. ANNEXURE A3: COPY OF THE NOTICE SENT BY THE FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM ON ANNEXURE A2. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Tr.P.(C) No.321 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of October, 2011. ORDER Respondent is served but he has not responded. 2. This petition is filed by the wife seeking transfer of O.P.(HMA) No.905 of 2011 from the Family Court, Kottayam, at Ettumanoor to the Family Court, Ernakulam. That is a petition filed by the respondent-husband for restitution of conjugal rights. It is submitted that petitioner has filed O.P.No.991 of 2011 in the Family Court, Ernakulam seeking divorce and that the said proceeding is pending in that court. It is submitted that petitioner is a resident of Cherai in Ernakulam District. According to the learned counsel, though respondent is a permanent resident of Plassanal, in Kottayam District he is working at Ernakulam and hence transfer of the case to the Family Court, Ernakulam will not cause inconvenience to him. 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 held that while considering the request for transfer of matrimonial proceedings convenience of the wife has to be looked into. It is not disputed that O.P.No.991 of 2011 filed by petitioner is pending in the Family Court, Ernakulam. Respondent has not so far requested transfer of that case for whatever reason it be. The address of the petitioner is given as Cherai P.O., Ernakulam. Convenience of the petitioner requires transfer of O.P.No.905 of 2011 to the Family Court, Ernakulam. The Tr.P(C)No.321/2011 2 inconvenience if any, that may be caused to the respondent could be reduced by directing that except when his physical presence is required in the transferee court, he can appear through counsel. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case I am inclined to allow the request for transfer. Resultantly this petition is allowed as follows: (i) O.P.No.905 of 2011 pending in the Family Court, Kottayam, at Ettumanoor is withdrawn from that court and transferred to the Family Court, Ernakulam 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.905 of 2011 (being transferred to that court) and O.P.No.991 of 2011 (pending in that court) as far as possible on the same dates. (iv) It is made clear that except when his physical presence is required in the transferee court, respondent can appear through counsel. I.A.No.2180 of 2011 will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks