IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 28TH JUNE 2011 / 7TH ASHADHA 1933 Tr.P(Crl.).No. 34 of 2011() -------------------------- MC.137/2010 of FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM ................. PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. THRESIAMMA ANTONY @ SOPHY, AGED 40 YRS, D/O.ANTONY, PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, KOTTIYOOR.P.O., KANNUR DIST. 2. CHRISTNA, AGED 41/2 YEARS, D/O.ALOSIOUS, MINOR. 3. NOYAL, AGED 21/2 YEARS, D/O.ALOSIOUS, MINOR. (PETITIONERS 2 AND 3 ARE REPRESENTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER AS MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN) BY ADV. SRI.C.A.JOY RESPONDENT : --------------- ALOSIOUS, S/O.JOSEPH, AGED 40 YEARS, ALATHARA HOUSE, EZHUPUNNA SOUTH.P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM JOHN THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/06/2011, ALONG WITH TR.P(C) NO. 144/2011, & TR.P(C) NO. 145/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Mn THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Tr.P(Crl.) No.34 of 2011 & Tr.P(C) Nos. 144 and 145 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 28th day of June, 2011 O R D E R These petitions are filed either by the wife herself or along with her children requesting transfer of matrimonial proceedings pending in the Family Court, Ernakulam to Family Court, Kannur. There are three proceedings pending in Family Court, Ernakulam; M.C. No.137 of 2010 filed for maintenance for the wife and children; O.P. No.435 of 2010 for divorce and O.P. No.1528 of 2010 for return of gold ornaments, money, etc. It is stated that petitioners are residing with the brother of first petitioner at Kottiyur in Kannur District and she finds it difficult to travel all the distance from that place to Family Court, Ernakulam and conduct the cases. It is the complaint of the wife that herself and children were driven out from the matrimonial home at Ezhupunna South, in Alappuzha District. According to the wife she had filed the proceedings before Family Court, Ernakulam since herself, children and husband last resided together at Palarivattom within the Tr.P(Crl.) No.34/2011 & Tr.P(C)Nos. 144 & 145/2011 -: 2 :- local limits of Family Court, Ernakulam. Learned counsel submitted that having regard to the convenience of wife and children proceedings may be transferred to Family Court, Kannur. 2. Petitions are opposed by the learned counsel for respondent. According to the learned counsel allegations made in the petitions for transfer are false. It is submitted that petitioners are not residing at Kottiyur in Kannur District; instead first petitioner is working as a Nurse at Krishnagiri in Tamil Nadu State and her children are studying in Vanaprastha International School run by the brother of the first petitioner at Krishnagiri and are put up in a hostel there. Learned counsel submitted that respondent is suffering from Arthritis and is unable to travel all the distance from Ernakulam to Kannur to conduct the cases. 3. It is not disputed before me that petitioners were staying within the local limits of Family Court, Ernakulam at the time of instituting the proceedings. According to the wife, herself and children are now staying at Kottiyur, in Kannur District while the respondent would say that they are staying at Krishnagiri, in Tamil Nadu State. Even if it is assumed that wife Tr.P(Crl.) No.34/2011 & Tr.P(C)Nos. 144 & 145/2011 -: 3 :- and her children are now at Krishnagiri, in Tamil Nadu, that is not their permanent place of residence. 4. 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. No doubt, that of course does not mean that inconvenience of the husband shall not be taken into consideration. Here, first petitioner is a lady aged 40 years and the children are aged 4½ and 2½ years, respectively. I stated that even if the wife and children are put up at Krishnagiri, that is not their permanent place of residence. Even if the wife is staying at Krishnagiri, she has to travel all the distance to reach Family Court, Ernakulam to conduct the cases. If the cases are transferred to Family Court, Kannur it will be more convenient to the wife and children since as learned counsel contends their family house is at Kannur. The inconvenience if any of respondent can be reduced to some extent by directing that he need appear in the transferee court only when his physical presence is required. In the facts and Tr.P(Crl.) No.34/2011 & Tr.P(C)Nos. 144 & 145/2011 -: 4 :- circumstances I am inclined to allow these petitions. Resultantly, these petitions are allowed in the following lines: (i) M.C. No.137 of 2010 and O.P. Nos.435 of 2010 and 1528 of 2010 pending in Family Court, Ernakulam are withdrawn from that court and made over to Family Court, Kannur. (ii) The transferor court while transmitting records of the cases 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. (iii) Family Court, Kannur shall ensure that all the cases are posted as far as possible on the same dates. Tr.P(Crl.) No.34/2011 & Tr.P(C)Nos. 144 & 145/2011 -: 5 :- (iv) It is made clear that except when physical presence of the respondent in the transferee court is necessary he can appear through counsel. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv