IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2009 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Tr.P(C).No. 260 of 2009() ------------------------- OPHMA.638/2009 of FAMILY COURT, KOTTARAKKARA .................... (S): PETITIONER/RESPONDENT ----------------------------------- SEETHA LAKSHMI,D/O.SREEKUMARI, HOUSE NO.63,JANAYUGAM NAGAR,KADAPPAKADA,KOLLAM. FROM AMBADI,VAYALA.PO,KOTTUKKAL VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA. BY ADV. SRI.S.SANTHOSH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER ---------------------------------- GOPAKUMAR,S/O.GOPALAKRISHNAN UNNITHAN, MUKALUVILA VADAKKATHIL,THAMARAKUDI.PO,KALAYAPURAM, MYLOM VILLAGE,KOTTARAKKARA. ADV. SRI.V.PREMCHAND FOR R1 THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ---------------------------------------- Tr.P.(C).No.260 OF 2009 -------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of December 2009 ---------------------------------------------------------- ORDER Petition is for transfer filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Petitioner is the wife and respondent the husband. Matrimonial disputes between the spouses have lead to proceedings before two Family Courts, one at Kollam and the other at Kottarakara. Wife has filed a petition as O.P No. 479 of 2009 before the Family Court, Kollam seeking a decree for recovery of valuables, gold ornaments etc. from the husband. Husband has filed another petition as O.P(HMA) No. 638 of 2009 for dissolution of marriage before the Family Court, Kottarakara. Wife seeks transfer of O.P(HMA) No. 638 of 2009 filed by the husband from the Family Court, Kottarakara to the Family Court, Kollam where her petition O.P No. 479 of 2009 is pending. 2. Notice given, the respondent/husband has entered appearance. I heard the counsel on both sides. Wife is residing with her parents at Kollam and she has none Tr.P.(C).No.260 OF 2009 Page numbers else to fall back upon other than her parents to prosecute/defend the case is the submission of the learned counsel for the wife. She is at present studying for a course at Kollam is also canvassed by the learned counsel to contend that it is highly inconvenient and difficult for her to go over to Family Court, Kottarakara where the husband has filed petition for dissolution of the marriage. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the husband urged that previously the wife had filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights at Family Court, Kottarakara, but, it was withdrawn and later she filed the present petition before the Family Court, Kollam setting forth a false cause of action. Inviting my attention to the cause of action stated in her petition presently filed before the Family Court, Kollam, the learned counsel submits that it has been invented only for the purpose of filing the petition at the Family Court, Kollam. Reliance is placed on “Y.A Ajit v Sofana Ajit” (AIR 2007 SC 3151) to contend that in considering the question of transfer with respect to a case from one Family Court to another, the court has to give due importance to the place where cause of action has arisen. I find that the decision relied by the Tr.P.(C).No.260 OF 2009 Page numbers counsel has been rendered by the apex court in a proceeding under the Indian Divorce Act. Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act enables the parties to file a petition for the reliefs given under that Act which includes the right of the wife to present a petition at the place where she is having a residence. Wife in the present case is having only 25 years and she depends on her parents for her sustenance in life and also to prosecute/defend the case. From the submission made by the counsel, it is also noticed that the spouses separated hardly two months after their marriage. The trauma, psychological impact and the difficulties which might have undergone soon after her marriage cannot be ignored in determining her request for transfer to the place where she is at present residing with her parents. She has previously filed a petition at the Family Court, Kottarakara is no bar precluding her from filing another petition for a different cause of action at a different Family Court which is having jurisdiction to entertain that petition. Other than pointing out that her cause of action pleaded is incorrect, which of course is a matter to be determined in the trial of the suit by the Family Court, no other circumstance has Tr.P.(C).No.260 OF 2009 Page numbers been brought to my notice, what difficulties or inconvenience will be caused to the husband in transfer of his case from Family Court, Kottarakara to Family Court, Kollam. It will be advantageous for both parties if the two petitions are tried by the same court which in effect will also avoid the chance of conflicting decisions. Needless to point out, in a matrimonial proceeding, the difficulties and hardship to be experienced by the wife has to be given more consideration and weightage in considering a request for transfer. In the given facts of the case, I find that the request for transfer by the wife deserve to be allowed. Ordered accordingly. I direct the Family Court, Kottarakara to transmit the records of O.P(HMA) No.638 of 2009 to the Family Court, Kollam without delay. The transferee court on receipt of the record shall give notice to the parties for appearance before that court. Petition is disposed as indicated above. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv