IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD FEBRUARY 2011 / 4TH PHALGUNA 1932 Tr.P(C).No. 378 of 2010 TO TRANSFER OP.974/2010 FROM FAMILY COURT, KOTTARAKKARA TO THE FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM. PETITIONER: RESPONDENT ------------------------------ SAJITHA A.V., D/O.AJITH, VALIYAVETTIL, CHERANELLUR, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.CHANDRAN SRI.V.A.SASIDHARAN SRI.JOSEPH ALBIN NEDUNTHALLY RESPONDENT: PETITIONER ------------------------- SAINULABDEEN, S/O.NURUDEENKUTTY, MUJEEB MANZIL, VENGARA P.O., MINAGAPPALLY VILLAGE, SASTHAMCOTTA-670 305. THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ Tr..P.(C). NO. 378 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 23rd day of February, 2011 O R D E R The petitioner, the wife of the respondent, prays for transfer of O.P.No.974 of 2010, pending before the Family Court, Kottarakkara, to the Family Court, Ernakulam, where O.P.No.1803 of 2010 is pending. 2. O.P.No.974 of 2010 was filed by the respondent/husband before the Family Court, Kottarakkara, for restitution of conjugal rights. The petitioner/wife filed O.P.No.1803 of 2010 before the Family Court, Ernakulam against the respondent/husband for return of gold ornaments and an amount of Rupees One lakh. Both the cases are pending. 3. It is stated that the petitioner belongs to Cheranellur in Ernakulam District. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 29.12.2005 at Cheranellur, Ernakulam District. Tr.P.(C) NO.378 OF 2010 :: 2 :: 4. It is stated that the petitioner is unemployed and she has to maintain a minor child. It is also stated that the respondent is not paying any maintenance to the petitioner and her child. The parents of the petitioner are aged. It is also stated that there is nobody to accompany the petitioner from Ernakulam to Kottarakkara to enable the petitioner to attend the Family Court, Kottarakkara. It is also stated that the respondent is powerful and he will prevent by all means the appearance of the petitioner before the Family Court, Kottarakkara. 5. Though notice was served on the respondent, there is no appearance for the respondent. 6. The Supreme Court in Sumitha Singh v. Kumar Sanjay and another (2001) 10 SCC 41), Mangla Patil Kale v. Sanjeev Kumar Kale ((2003) 10 SCC 280) and Rajwinder Kaur v. Balwinder Singh ((2003) 11 SCC 726) held that the inconvenience caused to the wife, if no transfer is made, should be taken note of. Tr.P.(C) NO.378 OF 2010 :: 3 :: Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the Transfer Petition is allowed. O.P.No.974 of 2010, pending before the Family Court, Kottarakkara, shall stand transferred to the Family Court, Ernakulam, where O.P.No.1803 of 2010 filed by the petitioner/wife against the respondent/husband is pending. The Family Court, Kottarakkara shall transmit the records in O.P.No.974 of 2010 to the Family Court, Ernakulam. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/