IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 10TH JULY 2009 / 19TH ASHADHA 1931 Tr.P(C).No. 175 of 2009 -------------------------------- O.P(DIV.)250/2009 & O.P. NO. 251/2009 OF FAMILY COURT, THIRUVALLA. .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- BEENA K.V., W/O.P.P.THOMAS, C/O.C.A.PAILEY, CHINGAMTHARA HOUSE, VADAKKUMPURAM P.O., N.PARUR. BY ADV. SMT.K.V.BHADRA KUMARI. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. P.P.THOMAS, S/O.YOHANNAN POTHEN, KAPPUSSERIL (PUTHUKKUDIL) HOUSE, VAIPUR P.O., THIRUVALLA (VIA), PATHANAMTHITTA DIST. 2. YOHANNAN POTHEN, KAPPUSSERIL (PUTHUKKUDIL) HOUSE, VAIPUR P.O., THIRUVALLA (VIA), PATHANAMTHITTA DIST. 3. LUCY, W/O.YOHANNAN POTHEN, KAPPUSSERIL (PUTHUKKUDIL) HOUSE, VAIPUR P.O., THIRUVALLA (VIA), PATHANAMTHITTA DIST. R1 TO R3 BY ADV. MR.ALEXANDER JOSEPH. THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Tr.P.(C) No. 175 OF 2009 ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 10th day of July, 2009 O R D E R Petition for transfer under section 24 of the CPC. Petitioner is the wife and 1st respondent, the husband. Second and third respondents are the parents of the husband. Petitioner and the 1st respondent are hereinafter referred to as the wife and husband. The wife moved two petitions O.P.Nos.250/09 and 251/09, the former for dissolution of marriage and the latter for return of her ornaments and valuables, before the Family Court, Thiruvalla. She also filed another application seeking maintenance from the husband as MC.No.64/09 before the Family Court, Ernakulam under section 125 Cr.P.C. alleging neglect of the husband to maintain her and the child, aged 4 years. The transfer of the two OPs pending before the Family Court, Thiruvalla to Family court, Ernakulam is prayed for in the petition. 2. Notice being given the respondents have entered appearance. I heard the counsel on both sides. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the wife submitted that in view of the CRP.175/09 : 2 : jurisdictional questions involved she was compelled to file the divorce petition and also the other petition for return of ornaments at the place where the marriage took place and the spouses had resided together. She is now residing in Ernakulam with her 4 year old child and, under the present circumstance, she is unable to go over to Thiruvalla and prosecute her cases. If all the cases are tried by one court, that will be convenient for the parties, is the further submission. The learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submitted that she has opted the Family Court, Thiruvalla and there is no merit in seeking a transfer. Whatever be the objection, the convenience of the parties and also the injury likely to be suffered by the 4 year old child who might be already undergoing psychological impact because of the separation of his parents has to be taken note of in considering the merit of the transfer petition. Admittedly the child is now under the care and custody of the mother. In case, she is compelled to go over to Thiruvalla to prosecute the cases, the child will have to be left unattended. Further more, it will be convenient for the parties to have all the cases tried by the same court so that if joint trial is possible, parties can lead evidence in common and avoid loss of precious time of the court also. If all the petitions are tried by CRP.175/09 : 3 : the same court, the chances of conflicting decisions can be avoided. Taking into consideration all the aspects, I direct the transfer of OP.Nos.250/09 and 251/09 on the file of the Family Court, Thiruvalla to the Family Court, Ernakulam. The Family Court, Thiruvalla will transmit the records of both the above cases to the Family Court, Ernakulam, at the earliest. Petition is allowed. Sd/- (S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE) aks // True Copy // P.A. to Judge