IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 24TH BHADRA 1932 TR.P(C).NO. 347 OF 2009() ------------------------------------- OP.1135/2009 OF FAMILY COURT, NEDUMANGAD .................... PETITIONER - COUNTER PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------------------ MINI A.U., D/O.LEKSHMI, ARAYANOLIL HOUSE PIZHAKU P.O., MANATHOOR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER: ----------------------------------------------- GOPAKUMAR K., S/O.KUMARA PILLAI, 'CHIRAKONATHU PUTHEN VEEDU', KUTTICHAL P.O., NOW RESIDING AT SREE NILAYAM, KARIPOOR, NEDUMANGADU. ADV. SRI.S.V.PREMAKUMARAN NAIR FOR R SRI.R.T.PRADEEP FOR R THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/09/2010, ALONG WITH TPC NO. 51 OF 2010 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Tr.P(C) No.347 of 2009 and Tr.P(C) No. 51 of 2010 ==================================== Dated this the 15th day of September, 2010 O R D E R These petitions are filed by the estranged wife and husband seeking transfer of cases filed by the opposite party to the court of her/his convenience. Husband has filed O.P. No.1135 of 2009 in Family Court, Nedumangad for a declaration that the marriage is null and void. The wife has filed M.C.No.6 of 2009 seeking maintenance and O.P. No.1129 of 2009 seeking restitution of conjugal rights against the respondent in Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor. While respondent wants the cases pending in Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor to be transferred to Family court, Nedumangad, the wife wants transfer of the case pending in Family Court, Nedumangad to Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor. Both say the long distance from their place of residence to the respective courts as one of the grounds for transfer. The husband has also a grievance that since he has disputed marriage with petitioner in Tr.P(C) No.347 of 2009 he is afraid of going to Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor since he Tr.P(C) No.347 of 2009 & Tr.P(C) No.51 of 2010 -: 2 :- has threat from the relatives of the “wife”. He also states that though the wife is a permanent resident of Pizhaku in Kottayam District she is in fact staying at Sasthamangalam in Thiruvananthapuram District. Learned counsel for wife requested that the case pending in Family Court, Nedumangad be transferred to Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor. Learned counsel for the husband would argue that cases pending in Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor may be transferred to Family Court, Nedumangad. Alternatively it is stated by learned counsel that all the cases may be brought to Family Court, Kollam so that it will be least inconvenient to both parties. 2. 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. That of course does not mean that inconvenience of the husband has to be ignored. There is no material on record to show that the wife is staying at Sasthamangalam as contended by the husband. On the other hand, in the petition filed by Tr.P(C) No.347 of 2009 & Tr.P(C) No.51 of 2010 -: 3 :- husband (Tr.P(C) No.51 of 2010) the address of the wife is given as if she is residing at Pizhaku in Kottayam District. Learned counsel states that in O.P.No.1135 of 2009 filed by the husband also her address is given as residing at Pizhaku. Hence contention of the husband that the wife is staying at Sasthamangalam cannot be accepted. 3. The distance from the place of residence of the wife to Thiruvananthapuram is not less than 200 kms. Though respondent-husband has an apprehension that he might be manhandled by the relatives of the 'wife', apart from the allegations in the petition I do not find any merit in that apprehension. If the case continued in Family Court, Nedumangad the lady has to travel for more than 200 kms. Necessarily she has to be accompanied by some of her relatives which will incur expenses. The comparative hardship considering all the relevant materials is higher on the side of the wife if the case is transferred to Family Court, Nedumangad or Kollam as suggested by learned counsel for respondent. In the circumstances I am inclined to allow the request made by the wife. Tr.P(C) No.347 of 2009 & Tr.P(C) No.51 of 2010 -: 4 :- Resultantly, these Petitions are disposed of as follows. (i) Tr.P(C) No.347 of 2009 is allowed in the following lines: (a) O.P. No.1135 of 2009 pending in Family Court, Nedumangad is withdrawn from that court and made over to Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor. (b) The transferor court while transmitting records of the case to the transferee court shall fix date for appearance of parties in the transferee court with due intimation to the counsel for both parties. (c) The transferee court shall ensure that O.P. Nos.1135 and 1129 of 2009 and M.C. No.6 of 2009 are posted on the same dates, as far as possible. Tr.P(C) No.347 of 2009 & Tr.P(C) No.51 of 2010 -: 5 :- (d) It is made clear that except when physical presence of respondent in court is necessary he can appear through counsel. (ii) Tr.P(C) No.51 of 2010 is dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv