IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2011 / 14TH SRAVANA 1933 TR.P(C).NO. 195 OF 2011() ------------------------- TRANSFER OP(G&W) NO.431/2011 FROM FAMILY COURT, NEDUMANGAD TO FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM .................... PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------------- RINCY PRASAD,D/O.PRASAD,AGED 28 YEARS, R/AT RAJ BHAVAN,NEAR VETERINARY HOSPITAL, PALACE ROAD, ATTINGAL. BY ADV. SMT.MAJIDA.S SRI.K.RAJESH KANNAN SRI.AJIKHAN.M RESPONDENT-PETITIONER: ----------------------------------------- SATHEESH KUMAR,S/O.SUKUMARAN ,AGED 42 YEARS,R/AT MELATHIL VEEDU,THALIKUZHI PO, PULIMATH VILLAGE,PIN 695 612. THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Tr.P(C) No.195 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 05th day of August, 2011 O R D E R Respondent is served but there is no response. 2. This petition is for transfer of O.P(G&W) No.431 of 2011 from Family Court, Nedumangad to Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. That is a petition filed by the respondent- husband seeking custody of children. It is stated that another petition filed by the respondent seeking restitution of conjugal rights has already been transferred as per order dated June 10, 2011 (by Annexure-A1, order). It is stated that petitioner, aged about 28 years is residing at Attingal. Respondent aged 42 years is a resident of Talikuzhi in Pulimath Village. No doubt transfer of the case from Family Court, Nedumangad to Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram may cause some inconvenience to the respondent. 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 request for transfer of matrimonial Tr.P(C) No.195 of 2011 -: 2 :- 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 not disputed that O.P.No.62 of 2011 filed by respondent has already been transferred from Family Court Nedumangad to Family Court Thiruvananthapuram. Having regard to the circumstances stated I am inclined to think that the hardship is comparatively more on petitioner in case request for transfer is not allowed. The inconvenience that may be caused to the respondent can be reduced by permitting him to appear in the transferee court through counsel except when his physical presence is required. Hence I am inclined to allow the petition. Resultantly, the Petition is allowed in the following lines: (a) O.P(G&W) No.431 of 2011 pending in Family Court, Nedumangad is withdrawn from that court and made over to Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram for trial and disposal. The said case and O.P.No.62 of 2011 (transferred from Family Court, Nedumangad) shall as far as possible be posted on the same dates. Tr.P(C) No.195 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) It is made clear that except when 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