IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 26TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 4TH ASWINA 1933 Tr.P(C).No. 253 of 2011(A) -------------------------------------- O.P.NO.840/2011 OF FAMILY COURT, NEDUMANGAD ------------------------- PETITIONER/1ST RESPONDENT IN THE OP --------------------------------------------------------------- ANU, AGED 27, D/O. ABIDA UMMAL, ANUPAMA, MANGARAM, PANDALAM P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.MUHAMMED HANEEFF SRI.R.KRISHNAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS NO.2 & 3 IN THE OP --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SHAJEER, AGED 31, S/O. ABDUL RASHEED, HILL VIEW, MOTTAKKAVU, KUTHIRAKULAM P.O., MANICKAL VILLAGE, NEDUMANGAD TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 615. 2. ABIDA UMMAL, AGED 48, W/O. ABDUL KHADER, ANUPAMA, MANGARAM, PANDALAM P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689 501. 3. K.M.JALEEL, AGED 55, S/O. KHANI, ANUPAMA, MANGARAM, PANDALAM P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689 501. R2 & R3 BY ADV. SMT.K.L.LAKSHMI RANI THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/09/2011, ALONG WITH TR.P(C)NO.254 OF 2011 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts TR.P(C)NO.253/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEX A1 COPY OF THE PETITION IN OP NO.840/2011 OF FAMILY COURT, NEDUMANGAD FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. ANNEX A2 COPY OF THE PETITION IN OP NO.865/2011 OF THE FAMILY COURT, NEDUMANGADFILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. ANNEX A3 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21/1/2011 IN I.A.NO.53/2011 IN OP NO.17/2011 OF FAMILY COURT, THIRUVALLA. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO.JUDGE sts THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Tr.P(C) Nos.253 & 254 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 26th day of September, 2011 O R D E R These petitions are filed by the wife for transfer of O.P. Nos.840 and 865 of 2011 from Family Court, Nedumangad to Family Court, Thiruvalla. Those petitions are filed by the first respondent-husband challenging the “Fasakh” and for return of cash, etc. In O.P. No.840 of 2011, apart from petitioner, her mother and uncle, both residing at Pandalam are also made parties. In O.P. No.865 of 2011 the Officer bearers of Mangaram Muslim Jama-ath who are residents of Pandalam are also parties. According to the petitioner, she filed O.P. No.17 of 2011 in the Family Court, Thiruvalla for return of gold ornaments and other reliefs, there was attachment of property of the first respondent and on getting notice of the attachment first respondent has filed O.P. Nos.840 and 865 of 2011 before the Family Court, Nedumangad. Petitioner stated that it is difficult for her and other respondents in O.P. No.840 of 2011 to travel all the distance from their place of residence at Pandalam to Nedumangad to contest the said cases. Hence the request for transfer. 2. Petitions are opposed by learned counsel for first Tr.P(C) Nos.253 & 254 of 2011 -: 2 :- respondent. In the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent it is contended that petitioner is studying in the University Campus at Karyavattom, Thiruvananthapuram and staying in the Kerala University Women's Hostel at Karyavattom and hence there is no necessity to transfer the cases from Nedumangad to Thiruvalla. Along with the counter affidavit Annexure-R1 is produced (in Tr.P(C) No.254 of 2011) where it is stated that petitioner got registration on 19.03.2009 under the guidance of Dr.Abdul Khader at Centre for Nano Science and Technology. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that it is true that petitioner was admitted in the University Campus as stated in Annexure-R1. The maximum time of study is five years, petitioner has already completed her study and is to submit her Thesis in December, this year. Learned counsel for first respondent would assert that even now petitioner is staying in the Kerala University Women's Hostel at Karyavattom. Even in Annexure-R1 it is stated that the maximum period for full time research is five years and the date of registration of petitioner as 19.03.2009. According to the learned counsel for petitioner, petitioner has already completed the course and has to submit her Thesis in December, 2011. 4. It is not disputed that petitioner is a permanent Tr.P(C) Nos.253 & 254 of 2011 -: 3 :- resident of Pandalam. It is seen that respondents 2 and 3 in O.P. Nos.840 and 865 of 2011 also belong to that place. The further fact to be noted is that O.P. No.17 of 2011 filed by petitioner is pending in Family Court, Thiruvalla. 5. 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 of course does not mean that inconvenience of the husband has to be ignored. Having regard to the rival contentions I am inclined to think that convenience of petitioner aged 27 years requires that the cases are tried and disposed of in the Family Court, Thiruvalla. That would be advantageous to other respondents in O.P. No.840 and 865 of 2011 who also reside at Pandalam. No doubt, transfer of the cases from Family Court, Nedumangad to Family Court, Thiruvalla will cause some inconvenience to the first respondent who is a resident of Manickal Village, in Nedumangad Taluk. But that inconvenience can be reduced by directing that he need appear in the transferee court only when his physical presence is required. Hence I am inclined to allow the petition. Tr.P(C) Nos.253 & 254 of 2011 -: 4 :- Resultantly, these Petitions are allowed in the following lines: (a) O.P. Nos.840 and 865 of 2011 pending in Family Court, Nedumangad are withdrawn from that court and made over to the Family Court, Thiruvalla 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, Thiruvalla shall ensure that O.P. Nos.840 and 865 of 2011 (transferred to it) and O.P. No.17 of 2011 (pending in that court) are posted as far as possible on the same dates. (d) It is made clear that except when the Tr.P(C) Nos.253 & 254 of 2011 -: 5 :- physical presence of first respondent in the transferee court is necessary, he can appear through counsel. All pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv