IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 10TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 19TH KARTHIKA 1933 Tr.P(C).No. 353 of 2011() ----------------------------------- OP.NO.682/2011 of FAMILY COURT, THIRUVALLA .................... PETITIONER -------------------- ANILA V. NAIR , AGED 32 YEARS MANNUMPURATH HOUSE, MEENACHIL P.O, PALA 686 589. WORKING AS A LIBRARIAN, ST.THOMAS COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY, KOZHUVALLOOR P.O, ALLEPPEY DIST. BY ADV. SMT.K.SUNITHA VINOD RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- JAYAKRISHNAN G.S., AGED 38 YEARS, VADASSERI PUTHENVEEDU ENATHU P.O, ADOOR.PIN-685 590 WORKING AS LAST GRADE SERVANT CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK , ADOOR. BY THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Tr.P(C) No.353 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 10th day of November, 2011 O R D E R Though the respondent is served, there is no appearance. 2. This petition is filed by the wife for transfer of O.P. No.682 of 2011 from the Family Court, Thiruvalla to the Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor. That is a petition filed by the respondent-husband for divorce. It is stated that petitioner has filed O.P. No.1207 of 2011 in the Family Court, Kottayam, at Ettumanoor seeking restitution of conjugal rights and that both the cases are to be tried and disposed of by the same court. Petitioner is aged 32 years, residing at Meenachil in Pala and working in a College at Kozhuvlloor in Alappuzha District. Petitioner states that she has to travel the long distance from her place of residence to Thiruvalla to contest the case. It is also stated that since the petitions are for divorce and and for restitution of conjugal rights it is necessary that both the cases are tried and disposed of by the same court to avoid divergent findings. Tr.P(C) No.353 of 2011 -: 2 :- 3. 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 the request for transfer of matrimonial proceedings convenience of the wife has to be looked into. Petitioner has filed O.P. No.1207 of 2011 in the Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor for restitution of conjugal rights and respondent has sought divorce in O.P. No.682 of 2011, it is necessary that both the cases are disposed of by the same court. Respondent has not sought transfer of O.P. No.1207 of 2011. Having regard to all relevant circumstances, I am inclined to think that the hardship is more on the petitioner if request for transfer is not allowed. The inconvenience if any of the respondent can be reduced by permitting him to appear in the transferee court through counsel except when his physical presence is required. Resultantly, the Petition is allowed as follows: (a) O.P. No.682 of 2011 pending in the Family Court, Thiruvalla is withdrawn from that court and made over to the Family Court, Kottayam, at Ettumanoor for trial and disposal. Tr.P(C) No.353 of 2011 -: 3 :- (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, Kottayam at Ettumanoor shall ensure that O.P. No.682 of 2011 (transferred to it) and O.P. No.1207 of 2011 (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