IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2010 / 3RD ASHADHA 1932 RP.No. 556 of 2010() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN TPC.108/2010 Dated 14/06/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/RESPONDENTS: --------------------------------- 1. VINOD JOSEPH, S/O.JOSEPH, VELLAKKATTEL HOUSE, KIZHAKOMBU KARA, KOOTHATTUKULAM VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK. 2. V.C.JOSEPH, VELLAKKATTEL HOUSE, KIZHAKOMBU KARA, KOOTHATTUKULAM VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK. 3. SARAMMA JOSEPH, W/O.JOSEPH, VELLAKKATTEL HOUSE, KIZHAKOMBU KARA, KOOTHATTUKULAM VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK. BY ADV. SMT.K.GIRIJA RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS: -------------------------- 1. ALICE, D/O.CHACKO, VELLAKATTEL VEEDU, KIZHAKOMBU KARA, KOOTHATTUKULAM VILLAGE, KOOTHATTUKULAM, NOW RESIDING AT MALLACKAL HOUSE, THRIKKODITHANAM P.O., CHANGANACHERRY. 2. ALVI VINOD, REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND ALICE. 3. ALCY VINOD, REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND ALICE. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- R.P.No.556 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 24th day of June, 2010 ORDER This transfer petition was disposed of by me in open court on 14-06-2010 after hearing counsel on both sides and referring to the respective contentions as well as the decisions of Supreme Court in Sumitra Singh Vs. Kumar Sanjay (AIR 2002 SC 396) and Arti Rani Lrs. Pinki Devi and Another Vs. Darmendra Kumar Gupta (2008(9) SCC 353) which throw light on the point. A few days later, respondent No.2 in the transfer petition has come up with this petition for review stating about the inconvenience petitioners in the review petition will be put if the case is transferred from Family Court, Ernakulam to the Family Court, Thiruvalla. It is stated that it is after the wife lost an application seeking maintenance from the respondent that she has chosen to seek transfer of matrimonial proceedings pending in Family Court, Ernakulam to Family Court, Thiruvalla. It is also stated that even as per the version of the wife, she has only a temporary job in a hospital at Thrikkodithanam and that even the proceeding filed by her in the Family Court, Ernakulam will show that she is a permanent resident of Koothattukulam in Ernakulam district. As such, transfer to Thiruvalla court is not warranted. R.P.No.556 of 2010 : 2 : Learned counsel also raised the apprehension that if the request of wife that because she is temporarily working at Thrikodithanam and hence the case is to be transferred to the Family Court at that place is accepted, there is a possibility of the case being transferred to some other Family Court in the State to which place wife may be transferred or at which place she may get a temporary job. Learned counsel made a fervent plea for review of the order dated 14-06-2010 and allow the proceedings to continue at Ernakulam. Lastly, it is pointed out that since plaintiff No.1 in the review petition is working abroad and the wife has also been staying with him there is a possibility of settlement between the parties for which it is necessary that the case remains in Family Court, Ernakulam. Learned counsel for respondents in the review petition contend that it was after hearing both sides and taking into account the relevant circumstances transfer petition is allowed and there is no reason to review. 2. Ext.R1(a), copy of the petition filed by wife in the Family Court, Ernakulam against the petitioners in the review petition is pressed into service by the learned counsel. There, address of the wife is given as if she is residing at Koothattukulam but, it is seen that permanent address of the wife given in Ext.R1(a) is the same as that of the husband meaning thereby that her permanent address given in Ext.R1(a) is the address of R.P.No.556 of 2010 : 3 : matrimonial home. On reading the address of wife and husband given in Ext.R1(a) it leaves me in no doubt that address stated by the wife is that of the matrimonial home. Therefore it is idle to contend that even now the wife and children are residing in the matrimonial home which contention the husband also does not have. 3. So far as other grounds on which the transfer was allowed is concerned, I took note of the fact that wife, a young lady is having a temporary job in a hospital at Thrikkodithanam, she along with children are staying at Thrikodithanam which is south-east of Changanassery and near to Thiruvalla. I also took into account the fact that children are being educated at Thrikodithanam and in such a situation it will be inconvenient to the wife to come to Ernakulam with the minor children. These aspects are taken into account to order transfer of the case to the Family Court at Thiruvalla. I must also bear in mind that husband is working abroad and for him it makes no difference whether the case is tried at Ernakulam or Thiruvalla. Now the difficulty pressed into service is that of power of attorney holder, father of husband. In the affidavit in support of the review application it is stated that father is aged about 68 years. I am not inclined to think that for him to travel from his place of residence at Ernakulam to Thiruvalla is as inconvenient as the wife to R.P.No.556 of 2010 : 4 : travelling from Thrikkodithanam to Ernakulam with the minor children particularly when she has a temporary job in a private institution at Thrikkodithanam and with no possibility of taking leave as and when she wished. There is no reason which pursuades me to review order dated 14-06-2010. 4. So far as the possibility of settlement is concerned, it is open to the parties to try for that even in the transferee court. Yet another grievance of petitioners in the review application is that since the case is transferred to Family Court at Thiruvalla its disposal might get prolonged. To allay the apprehension of petitioners in the review petition I direct learned Judge of the Family Court, Thiruvalla expedite trial and disposal of the case in case parties are not able to reach a settlement as stated. Accordingly the review petition is dismissed. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-