IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 6TH DECEMBER 2010 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 Tr.P(C).No. 303 of 2010() ------------------------- OP.204/2010 of FAMILY COURT, THODUPUZHA .................... PETITIONER ------------------------------ JISH JOHN, W/O.SHIJO PAUL K ABRAHAM AGED 28 YEARS, ANATHAZHATHU HOUSE, CONVENT ROAD, NORTH PARAVUR PO, ERNAKULAM BY ADV. SRI.BIJU M.JOHN SRI.V.G.VISAL KUMAR SRI.ABEY JOSEPH SRI.GEORGE JOSEPH (MANALEL) RESPONDENT: --------------- SHIJO PAUL K.ABRAHAM, AGED 34 YEARS KOIKADUIYIL HOUSE ANAVIRATTY PO, ADIMALY, IDUKKI DISTRICT, WORKING AS ASSOCIATE CONSULTANT, WIPRO INFOTECH, SAP ENT PRACTICE,SEZ, INFO PARK,KAKKANADU 682 030. THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- Tr.P(C).No.303 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 06th day of December, 2010 ORDER Notice to respondent is returned with the endorsement “unclaimed”. Rule 51(2) of the High Court Rules states that it is sufficient service and hence it is declared that notice is duly served on respondent. 2. This petition is filed by the wife seeking transfer of O.P.No.204 of 2010 from Family Court, Thodupuzha to Family Court, Ernakulam. That is a petition filed by the respondent/husband seeking divorce. Petitioner and her child have filed M.C.No.161 of 2010 in Family Court, Ernakulam seeking maintenance from the respondent. Petitioner states that she is aged 28 years, is a resident of North Paravur, in Ernakulam District, her child is aged only 2½ years and that she has to travel a long distance from her place of residence to Thodupuzha to contest the case. There is nobody to accompany her. It is stated that respondent is a resident of Adimaly, in Idukki District is presently working at Kakkanad in Ernakulam District. Learned counsel requested that in the circumstances the case may be transferred to Family Court, Ernakulam. Tr.P(C).No.303 of 2010 : 2 : 3. The Supreme Court in Sumitha Singh Vs. Sanjay Kumar & Another (AIR 2002 SC 396) and Arti Rani Lrs. Pinki Devi and Another Vs. Darmendra Kumar Gupta (2008 (9) SCC 353) stated that while considering request for transfer in matrimonial proceedings convenience of the wife has to be looked into. It is not disputed that petitioner and her child have filed M.C.No.161 of 2010 seeking maintenance from respondent and that case is pending in Family Court, Ernakulam. It is convenient to both sides if the cases are tried and disposed of by the same court. Respondent has not so far requested for transfer of M.C.No.161 of 2010 to Family Court, Thodupuzha on any reason whatsoever. It is also stated by petitioner that respondent is now working at Kakkanad, in Ernakulam District. Having regard to these aspects I am inclined to think that to avoid hardship to the petitioner the case is to be transferred from Family Court, Thodupuzha to Family Court, Ernakulam. That would not cause any inconvenience to the respondent since he has to attend Family Court, Ernakulam in connection with M.C.No.161 of 2010. In these circumstances, I am inclined to allow this petition. Tr.P(C).No.303 of 2010 : 3 : Resultantly this petition is allowed in the following lines: (i) O.P.No.204 of 2010 pending in Family Court, Thodupuzha is withdrawn from that court and made over to Family Court, Ernakulam. (ii) The transferor court shall transmit records of the case to the transferee court with due intimation to counsel on both sides as to the date of appearance in transferee court. (iii) Transferor court shall ensure that all the cases are posted as far as possible on the same date. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-