IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 31ST OCTOBER 2011 / 9TH KARTHIKA 1933 Tr.P(C).No. 247 of 2011 -------------------------------- [FOR TRANSFOR OF O.P.NO.864/2011 OF THE FAMILY COURT,ERNAKULAM TO THE FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM] .................... PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------------- VIDYA VIJAYAN, D/O. VIJAYAN, ELANJADAYIL HOUSE, MULAKKULAM SOUTH P.O, KOTTAYAM. BY ADVS. SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE, SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE, SMT.ACHU SUBHA ABRAHAM. RESPONDENT: ---------------------- UMESH C.V, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, CHIRAMEL PARAMBIL HOUSE, CHILAVANNOOR ROAD, KADAVANTHRA PO, KOCHI- 682 020. BY ADV. SRI.SUBAL J.PAUL. THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: TR.P.(C).NO.247/2011: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:- ANNEXURE A1: COPY OF THE M.C. NO. 183/2011 FILED IN THE FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM DTD. 08/06/2011. ANNEXURE A2: COPY OF THE ORIGINAL PETITION FILED AS O.P.NO.864/2011 IN THE FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM DTD. 04/05/2011. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Prv. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Tr.P(C) No.247 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 31st day of October, 2011 O R D E R Petitioner-wife seeks transfer of O.P. No.864 of 2011 from the Family Court, Ernakulam to the Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor. That is a petition filed by the respondent-husband seeking divorce. Petitioner filed M.C. No.183 2011 in the Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor, claiming maintenance from the respondent according to the respondent after he filed O.P. No.864 of 2011. Petitioner states that she is residing at Mulakkulam, in Kottayam District and that she has to travel the long distance from her place of residence to Ernakulam to contest the case. 2. Application is opposed by the respondent. Learned counsel submitted that the distance from the place of residence of petitioner to the Family Court, Ernakulam and the Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor is almost equal and hence there is no need to transfer the case from the Family Court, Ernakulam to the Family Court, Kottayam, at Ettumanoor. 3. The Supreme Court in Sumitha Singh v. Kumar Sanjay and another (AIR 2002 SC 396) and Arti Rani v. Tr.P(C) No.247 of 2011 -: 2 :- 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. Admittedly M.C. No.183 of 2011 filed by the petitioner whether before or after filing O.P. No.864 of 2011 is pending before the Family Court, Kottayam, at Ettumanoor. Respondent has not so far sought transfer of M.C. No.183 of 2011 to the Family Court, Ernakulam. Respondent has to attend the Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor to contest M.C. No.183 of 2011. Rather than the parties fighting the cases in two courts at Ettumanoor and Ernakulam it is appropriate that both the cases are consolidated in and disposed of by the same court. That will avoid inconvenience of both the parties. The inconvenience that may be caused to the respondent by transfer of the case to Ettumanoor could be reduced by permitting him to appear in the transferee court through counsel except when his physical presence is required. I am inclined to allow the petition. Resultantly, the Petition is allowed as follows: (a) O.P. No.864 of 2011 pending in the Tr.P(C) No.247 of 2011 -: 3 :- Family Court, Ernakulam is withdrawn from that court and made over to the Family Court, Kottayam, at Ettumanoor. (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) The Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor shall ensure that O.P. No.864 of 2011 (transferred to it) and M.C. No.183 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 physical presence of respondent in the transferee court is necessary, he can appear through counsel. All pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv