IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 23RD AUGUST 2011 / 1ST BHADRA 1933 TR.P(C).NO. 94 OF 2011() ----------------------------------- OP.583/2010 OF FAMILY COURT,THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER: -------------------- BINDU PAUL, AGED 32, D/O.MATHAI, ELAVUMKUDIYIL HOUSE, KOTTIYOOR P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.VIDYASAGAR SRI.P.CHANDY JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ K.K.POLACHAN, AGED 43, S/O.KOCHU VARKEY, KOYIKKARA HOUSE, KALLOOR, ANNAMANADA P.O., CHALAKUDY. ADV. SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: TR.P(C) NO.94 OF 2011 APPENDIX --------------- PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: ---------------------------------- ANNEXURE-A1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN TRANSFER PETITIONER NO.126 OF 2010 DATED 22.06.2010. ANNEXURE-A2 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE CRL. M.C. NO.141 OF 2010 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, KANNUR. ANNEXURE-A3 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF O.P. NO.290 OF 2010 FILED BY THE PETITIONER AND 2 OTHERS BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, KANNUR. ANNEXURE-A4 TRUE COPY OF O.P. NO.583 OF 2010 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: ----------------------------------- NIL TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Tr.P(C) No.94 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 23rd day of August, 2011 O R D E R This petition is filed by the wife claiming to be residing at Kottiyoor, in Kannur District requesting for transfer of O.P. No.583 of 2010 from Family Court, Thrissur to the Family Court, Thalassery. It is sated that three proceedings - M.C. No.141 of 2010, O.P. No.113 of 2010 and O.P.No.290 of 2010 are pending in Family Court, Thalassery. According to the petitioner, she has to travel a long distance from her place of residence to Thrissur to contest the case. 2. Petition is opposed by the respondent. It is contended that petitioner is residing at Moolamattom near Thoudupuzha. It is also contended that maintenance payable to the petitioner is being sent through the State Bank of India, Moolamattom branch. 3. In answer to that, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the permanent residence of petitioner is at Kottiyoor in Kannur District and that her children are staying in the house of her brother, at Moolamattom to pursue their studies. 4. Fact remained that three cases are pending in Tr.P(C) No.94 of 2011 -: 2 :- Family Court, Thalassery involving the respondent also. In connection with payment of maintenance, it may be possible for the respondent to send the amount by money order in the appropriate address. But to contest O.P. No.290 of 2010 respondent has to go to Thalassery. Though respondent made an attempt to transfer O.P. No.113 of 2010 to Family Court, Thrissur that was rejected. Accordingly O.P. No.113 of 2010 continues to be pending in Family Court, Thalassery. Respondent is working abroad and conducting the cases through his Power of Attorney Holder. As regards the address of petitioner it is stated that she is permanently residing at Kottiyoor, in Kannur District. That is the address given in the transfer petition. In O.P. No.583 of 2010 (Annexure A4, filed by the respondent) also address of petitioner is given as if she is residing at Kottiyoor in Kannur District. In these circumstances I do not find reason to think that permanent residence of petitioner is elsewhere. 5. 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 Tr.P(C) No.94 of 2011 -: 3 :- 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. It is stated that petitioner is permanently residing at Kottiyoor in Kannur District and she finds it difficult to travel all the distance from that place to Thrissur to contest the case. Moreover, three other proceedings are pending in Family Court, Thalassery. Convenience of parties is required that all the cases are disposed of by the same court. The inconvenience that may be caused to the respondent can be reduced to some extent by permitting him to appear in the transferee court through counsel except when his personal presence is necessary. Having considered the circumstances I am inclined to think that the hardship is comparatively more on petitioner in case request for transfer is not allowed. Hence I am inclined to allow the petition. Resultantly, the Petition is allowed in the following lines: (a) O.P. No.583 of 2010 pending in Family Court, Thrissur is withdrawn from that court and made over to Family Court, Thalassery for trial and disposal. Tr.P(C) No.94 of 2011 -: 4 :- (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) Family Court, Thalassery shall ensure that O.P.583 of 2010 (transferred to it) and O.P.Nos.113 of 2010, O.P. No.290 of 2010 and M.C. No.141 of 2010 (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