IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2010 / 10TH ASHADHA 1932 RP.No. 579 of 2010() -------------------- AGAINST ORDER IN Tr.P(C) NO.88 OF 2010 REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER -------------------------------- SOFIA (ASMA BIVI), D/O. SAID UNNI KOYA THANGAL, AGED 24 YEARS, RESIDING AT POOMULLAKAKATH HOUSE, NISSAMUDDIN MANZIL, AYANGALAM.P.O., KODAKASSERY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.K.MEKHA DINESH SMT.M.A.BINDU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- SAID HAMMED HUSSAIN THANGAL, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O. POOKOYA THANGAL, THANGAL HOUSE, THANGAL NAGAR, PALLURUTHY, KOCHI-16 THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- R.P.No.579 of 2010 in Tr.P.(C) No.88 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of July, 2010. ORDER Heard counsel on both sides. 2. Review sought for is of the order dated 24.05.2010. Petitioner/wife sought transfer of a case pending in Family Court, Ernakulam to Family Court, Malappuram. Taking note of the fact that that wife has already initiated another proceeding in the Family Court, Malappuram and considering the place of residence of both parties, this Court after hearing counsel on both sides directed that both the cases can be transferred to Family Court, Thrissur so that it will be less inconvenient to both sides. Now, this petition is filed for review of that order. It is stated that it is difficult for the wife to reach Thrissur from her place of residence. But on hearing learned counsel on both sides I find that the distance the wife has to travel to Thrissur from her place of residence is only a little more than the distance she has to travel from her place of residence to Malappuram while as against that small inconvenience for the wife, a great inconvenience to the husband who has to travel from Ernakulam to Malappuram could be avoided. The additional distance that the wife has to travel when the cases are transferred to Family Court, Thrissur is only 15 kms even according to RP No.579/2010 2 the learned counsel for petitioner. I am not persuaded to think that when request for transfer of matrimonial proceedings is considered inconvenience of the husband whatever it be has to be ignored and only the convenience of the wife has to be looked into. It is after considering all relevant aspects that the order sought to be reviewed was passed on 24.05.2010. I do not find any error apparent on the face of record or any other ground enabling the petitioner to get review of the order. As such, the request cannot be allowed. Resultantly petition for review is dismissed. I.A.No.1577 of 2010 will stand closed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks