IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 28TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 7TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 Tr.P(C).No. 88 of 2011 ------------------------------- [OP.2002/2010 of FAMILY COURT,THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------------- NASEEMA.K.H, AGED 46, D/O. HAMEED.K.B, KARUPPAM VEETTIL, FASHION HOUSE, CHAKKALAKKAL ROAD, PERUMANOOR, KOCHI-15. BY ADVS. SRI.K.G.SARATHKUMAR, SRI.S.RAJKUMAR. RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS: -------------------------------------------- 1. ABDUL KAREEM, AGED 57, S/O. KHADER, PARIPPUKALATHINKAL HOUSE, PATHAYAKKAD.P.O., KODUNGALLOOR, PIN - 687 540. 2. THE KODUNGALLOOR TOWN CO-OP. BANK LTD. 102, EDAVILANGU BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN - 687 540. R1 BY ADVS. SRI.T.H.ABDUL AZEEZ, SRI.P.M.ABDUL JALEEL (KODUNGALLUR). THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/11/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Prv. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- Tr.P(C).No.88 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 28th day of November, 2011 ORDER This petition is filed by the respondent/wife in O.P.No.2002 of 2010 of the Family Court, Thrissur requesting to transfer that case to the Family Court, Ernakulam. That original petition is filed by the first respondent/husband for a mandatory injunction for return of the property involved therein. First respondent has impleaded the second respondent also as a party in the said suit. Petitioner filed M.C.No.220 of 2010 and O.P.No.1405 of 2010 in the Family Court, Ernakulam, the latter being for declaration of transfer of the dwelling house effected by the first respondent as void. It is stated that petitioner is residing with her mother at Perumanoor, in Kochi and that she has to travel all the distance to Thrissur with nobody to accompany her. Hence the request for transfer. 2. Second respondent is served. First respondent has appeared through counsel and opposed the application. It is contended that instruction the counsel has received is that petitioner is staying at Kodungallur in which case there is no necessity to transfer the case to Ernakulam. Tr.P(C).No.88 of 2011 -: 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) has stated that while considering the request for transfer in matrimonial proceedings convenience of the wife has to be looked into. There is no material on record to show that petitioner is staying at Kodungallur. On the other hand, her address given in this petition is as if she is residing at Perumanoor, Kochi. First respondent is residing at Pathayakkad, near Kodungallur which is not far away from Ernakulam having regard to the distance from that place to Thrissur. I must bear in mind that two proceedings initiated by petitioner against the first respondent is pending before Family Court, Ernakulam. In the circumstances, it is appropriate that all the cases are tried and disposed of by the same Court. Having regard to the various circumstances stated I am inclined to think that comparative hardship is more on petitioner if request for transfer is not allowed. Resultantly this original petition is allowed as follows: (i) O.P.No.2002 of 2010 pending in the Family Court, Thrissur is withdrawn from that court and made over to Family Court, Ernakulam. Tr.P(C).No.88 of 2011 -: 3 :- (ii) The transferor court shall transmit records of the case to the transferee court with due intimation to the counsel on both sides as to the date of appearance in the transferee court. (iii) It is made clear that except when physical presence of respondents are necessary it is open to them to appear through counsel in the transferee court. (iv) Family Court, Ernakulam is directed to post all the cases between the parties hereto on the same day as far as possible. (THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-