IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 2ND NOVEMBER 2010 / 11TH KARTHIKA 1932 Tr.P(C).No. 76 of 2008() ------------------------ OP.283/2008 of FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM AT ETTUMANOOR .................... PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------------- ANUMA AUGUSTIN @ MANY, D/O.AUGUSTINE THOMAS @ PAPPACHAN, CHAVANALIL HOUSE, ALAKKODU P.O. KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE RESPONDENT/ PETITIONER: ------------------------- TONY JOSEPH @ VARGHESE, S/O.JOSE JOSEPH, VENGATHANATHU HOUSE, KANJIRAMATTOM, CHENGALAM P.O., CHENGALAM EAST VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.K.A.HASSAN THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/11/2010, ALONG WITH TPC NO. 96 OF 2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- Tr.P(C).Nos.76 and 96 of 2008 --------------------------------------- Dated this 02nd day of November, 2010 ORDER These petitions are filed by the warring wife and husband seeking transfer of cases they have filed in the respective Family Courts to the Family Court of their convenience. The wife seeks transfer of the case from Family Court Kottayam at Ettumanoor to Family Court, Kannur while the husband seeks transfer of the case pending in Family Court, Kannur to Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor. Both have their own reasons for seeking transfer, the wife saying that she is residing at Alakkod, in Kannur District along with her parents, she is not able to travel the long distance from Kannur to Ettumanoor which is more than 350kms, she has to be accompanied by some relative which involves expense also while the husband would say that relatives of the wife had threatened him several times at Kannur when he went to the Family Court at that place to attend the court. The husband has also preferred certain complaints to the local police in that regard. Learned counsel on either side argued in support of the case pleaded by their clients. Tr.P(C).Nos.76 and 96 of 2008 : 2 : 2. The wife is aged 23 years and is a resident of Alakkod in Kannur District while the husband is aged about 28 years and is a resident of Kanjiramattom in Kottayam District. The Supreme Court in Sumitha Singh Vs. Sanjay Kumar & Another (AIR 2002 SC 396) and Arti Rani Lrs. Pinki Devi and Another Vs. Darmendra Kumar Gupta (2008(9) SCC 353) has stated that while considering request for transfer in matrimonial proceedings convenience of the wife has to be looked into. No doubt, that does not meant that the inconvenience of the wife whatever it be has to be ignored. Now the situation is that O.P.No.283 of 2008 filed by the husband seeking restitution of conjugal rights is pending in Family Court, Kottayam, at Ettumanoor while O.P.No.82 of 2008 filed by the wife seeking divorce is pending in Family Court, Kannur. There can be no dispute that these cases, considering nature of the contentions raised and reliefs sought are to be tried and disposed of by the same court. Hence the cases are to be consolidated in one court. Now the question is in which of the courts the cases are to be consolidated. 3. I stated about the respective place of residence of the parties. The wife is aged about 23 years. If the case is transferred to Family Court, Kottayam, at Ettumanoor she has to Tr.P(C).Nos.76 and 96 of 2008 : 3 : travel more than 350kms. Necessarily she has to be accompanied by some of her close relative which involves expense also. True, if the case is transferred to Family Court at Kannur the husband has also to travel the same distance. But comparative hardship is more on the wife if these cases are consolidated in the Family Court, Kottayam, at Ettumanoor than the inconvenience that would be caused to the husband if the cases are consolidated at Kannur. The inconvenience that may be caused to the husband can be reduced by directing that he need appear in the transferee court only when his personal appearance is necessary. Having regard to the facts and circumstances stated above I am inclined to allow the petition filed by the wife. Resultantly this petition is disposed of in the following lines: (I) O.P.No.76 of 2008 is allowed as follows: (i) O.P.No.283 of 2008 is withdrawn from Family Court, Kottayam, at Ettumanoor and made over to Family Court, Kannur. (ii) The transferor court shall transmit records of the case to the transferee court with due intimation to counsel on both sides as to the date of appearance in transferee court. (iii) It is made clear that except when his personal presence is required, respondent can appear in the transferee court through counsel. Tr.P(C).Nos.76 and 96 of 2008 : 4 : (II) O.P.No.96 of 2008 (i) In the light of the decision in Tr.P(C). No.76 of 2008 this petition will stand dismissed. (ii) If petitioner/husband faces any harassment or threat at the hands of respondent/wife or her relatives, I make it clear that it will be open to the petitioner to bring that matter to the notice of Presiding Officer of Family Court, Kannur and seek appropriate reliefs. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-