IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 8TH JULY 2010 / 17TH ASHADHA 1932 Tr.P(C).No. 84 of 2010() ------------------------ GOP.60/2010 of FAMILY COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): -------------------- ABITHA, D/O.LATE VIKRAM SING, PAKKANCHERY HOUSE, NATTIKA P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN:680566. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- SHANIL KUMAR GOPI, AGED 32, S/O.LATE GOPI, CHOORAKATTIYIL HOUSE, PADAMUGAL P.O KAKKANAD, PIN-682 021. ADV. SRI.JAIJI ITTEN THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Tr.P.(C) No.84 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of July, 2010. ORDER The wife seeks transfer of G.O.P.No.60 of 2010 from the Family Court, Ernakulam to Family Court, Thrissur. Petitioner/wife stated that she is a resident of Nattika which according to the learned counsel is nearer to Family Court, Thrissur than to Family Court, Ernakulam where case is now pending. It is stated that M.C.No.93 of 2010 filed by petitioner seeking maintenance for herself and the child is pending in Family Court, Thrissur and if the cases are pending in two courts petitioner will have to attend the courts at Thrissur and Ernakulam. It is also stated that there is nobody else to look after petitioner's minor child. In the circumstances the request for transfer. 2. Learned counsel for respondent would contend that Nattika is not a far away place from Ernakulam nor is it inconvenient for petitioner to go to Ernakulam. It is also stated that respondent, to see his child has to go to Thrissur if the case is transferred to Family Court, Thrissur. 3. It is stated that petitioner is a resident of Nattika and that respondent resides at Kakkanadu in Ernakulam District. Indisputably, M.C.No.93 of 2010 filed by petitioner seeking maintenance from respondent is pending in Family Court, Thrissur. So far there is no request from the respondent to transfer that case to Family Court, Ernakulam. It is only just and convenient to consolidate the cases in the same court so that parties need Tr.P.(C) No.84/2010 2 not go to different courts. I also bear in mind that the place of residence of petitioner is nearer to Family Court, Thrissur. Considering these circumstances I am inclined to allow this petition. Resultantly this petition is allowed in the following lines: i. G.O.P.No.60 of 2010 pending in Family Court, Ernakulam is withdrawn from that court and made over to Family Court, Thrissur. ii. The transferor court shall, while transmitting records of the case to the transferee court fix the date for appearance of parties in the transferee court with due intimation to the counsel on both sides. I.A.No.747 of 2010 will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks