IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 4TH OCTOBER 2010 / 12TH ASWINA 1932 TR.P(C).NO. 91 OF 2009() ------------------------------------- OPGW.620/2008 OF FAMILY COURT, ALAPPUZHA .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- DHANYA R.NAIR, AGED 22 YEARS, D/O.RAVEENDRAN NAIR, R/AT.POTHUMATHRA CHENCHERI PARAMBIL HOUSE, PADINJAREKARA MURI, NEDUMPURAM VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DIST., AND NOW R/AT.ROHINI(H),NADUVILE MURI,THALAVADI VILLAGE,KUTTANADU TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.A.T.ANILKUMAR SRI.P.DALBI EMMANUEL RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- SANTHILAL, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.SASI, R/AT. PRASANTHI HOUSE, NORTH ARYAD P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.N.RAGHURAJ FOR R1 SMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY FOR R1 THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/10/2010, ALONG WITH TPC NO. 90 OF 2010 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Tr.P(C) No.91 of 2009 & Tr.P.(C) No.90 of 2010 ==================================== Dated this the 04th day of October, 2010 O R D E R In both the petitions filed by the petitioner-wife request is to transfer O.P(G&W) No.620 of 2008 from Family Court, Alappuzha to Family Court, Thiruvalla. Petitioner-wife has filed O.P. No.184 of 2008 in Family court, Thiruvalla against her husband and others (respondents in Tr.P(C) No.90 of 2010) for return of gold ornaments and that petition is pending consideration in that court. At the time Tr.P.(C) No.91 of 2009 was filed O.P. No.184 of 2008 had been disposed of by Family Court, Thiruvalla and later in appeal that case was remitted to Family Court, Thiruvalla. Taking into account that development petitioner filed Tr.P.(C) No.90 of 2010 with the same request that O.P(G&W) No.620 of 2008 may be transferred to Family Court, Thiruvalla. It is contended by learned counsel that petitioner is aged 24 years, is residing with her parents at her paternal home in Thalavady Taluk which is nearer to Family court at Thiruvalla than Family Court, Alappuzha. It is also pointed out that O.P.No.184 of 2008 is pending consideration in Family Court, Thiruvalla and hence it is convenient Tr.P(C) No.91 of 2009 & 90 of 2010 -: 2 :- for both parties if the cases are tried and disposed of by the same court. Learned counsel for respondent(s) contended that petitions mischievously show a rented house at Nedumpuram Village as the place where petitioner is residing with the sole object of making it appear that she is residing nearer to Family Court, Thiruvalla. Learned counsel has taken me through the proceeding filed by petitioner in the Family Court to buttress his contention that address of the rented premises in Nedumpuram Village was given to facilitate transfer of the case from Family Court, Alappuzha to Family Court, Thiruvalla. 2. No doubt in O.P(HMA) No.183 of 2006 filed by petitioner seeking divorce, her address is given as Thadathil House, Padinjarekkaramuri in Nedumpuram Village (which I am told comes in Thiruvalla Taluk) but she is stated to have been residing then at Naduvilemuri, Thalavadi Village in Kuttanad Taluk (without mentioning the District - Alappuzha). That according to the learned counsel is a mischievous attempt on the part of petitioner to get the case transferred to Family Court, Thiruvalla. 3. True, address of petitioner is given as that of rented Tr.P(C) No.91 of 2009 & 90 of 2010 -: 3 :- premises at Padinjarekkaramuri in Thiruvalla Taluk. But in all those proceedings she has stated that at the time of filing the respective proceedings she was residing Naduvilemuri, Thalavadi Village admittedly in Alappuzha District. Hence it is not as if petitioner has stated that as on the date of filing proceedings she was residing in Nedumpuram Village so that she wanted to make it appear that Family Court, Thiruvalla is more convenient to her. She stated that she is residing at Naduvilemuri in Thalavadi Village in Alappuzha District. Hence contention of learned counsel for respondent(s) that petition has been filed mischievously cannot be sustained. 4. It is not disputed that O.P. No.184 of 2008 filed by petitioner is pending in Family Court, Thiruvalla. Admittedly respondent(s) are residing at Alappuzha. But so far, they have not made any request to transfer O.P. No.184 of 2008 to Family Court, Alappuzha for any reason whatsoever. In other words if the cases continued in two courts it will be inconvenient to both parties that they have to approach two courts in respect of the matrimonial disputes and proceedings arising therefrom. It is convenient for both parties that cases are consolidated in the Tr.P(C) No.91 of 2009 & 90 of 2010 -: 4 :- same court. 5. So far as the distance factor is concerned while counsel for petitioner states that distance from her place of residence to Family Court, Thiruvalla is 9 kms, counsel for respondent(s) would say it as 15 kms. According to the learned counsel for petitioner, Family Court, Alappuzha is 50 kms away from her place of residence. Learned counsel for respondent(s) would say it as 15 kms. Either way one thing is sure, Family Court, Thiruvalla is nearer to the place of residence of petitioner than Family Court, Alappuzha. 6. 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 proceedings convenience of the wife has to be looked into. That of course does not mean that inconvenience if any of the husband and others is to be ignored. Here is a case where petitioner is aged about 24 years and she has a three year old child. In connection with the claim regarding custody of child in O.P(G&W) No.620 of 2008 petitioner may have to take the child Tr.P(C) No.91 of 2009 & 90 of 2010 -: 5 :- also to Family Court, Alappuzha. Having regard to these circumstances I am persuaded to think that the convenience of the wife requires the case to be transferred to Family Court, Thiruvalla. The convenience of the wife otherwise, outweighs the inconvenience that may be caused to the husband aged about 26 years if the case is transferred to Family Court, Thiruvalla. Having regard to these aspects I am inclined to allow the prayer of petitioner. Resultantly, these petitions are disposed of in the following lines: (A) Tr.P.(C) No.90 of 2010 (i) O.P(G&W) No.620 of 2008 pending in Family Court, Alappuzha is withdrawn from that court and made over to Family Court, Thiruvalla for disposal. (ii) The transferor court while transmitting records of the case to the transferee court shall fix Tr.P(C) No.91 of 2009 & 90 of 2010 -: 6 :- the date for appearance of parties in the transferee court with due intimation to the counsel on both sides. (iii) Family Court, Thiruvalla shall ensure that O.P.(G & W) No.620 and O.P.No.184 of 2008 pending in that court are posted as far as possible on the same dates. (iv) It is made clear that except when physical presence of respondent(s) in the transferee court is necessary he/they can appear through counsel. (B) In the light of disposal of Tr.P(C) No.90 of 2010 as above, Tr.P(C) No.91 of 2009 is closed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv