IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 26TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 4TH ASWINA 1933 Tr.P(C).No. 236 of 2011() ------------------------- OP.80/2011 of FAMILY COURT, THIRUVALLA .................... PETITIONER (S): ------------------------------ THUSHARA MARKOSE, PUTHENPURAKKAL HOUSE, LAKKATTOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.A.K.HARIDAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- RENU THOMAS, PUTHENVEETTIL HOUSE, THUMPAMON P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA-689502. THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Tr.P.(C)NO.236/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE 1 TRUE COPY OF OP(DIV) 43/2011 BEFORE FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM ANNEXURE 2 TRUE COPY OF OP(DIV) 45/2011 BEFORE FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM ANNEXURE 3 TRUE COPY OF OP 80/2011 BEFORE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVALLA //TRUE COPY// THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Tr.P.(C) No.236 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of September, 2011. ORDER Respondent is served but there is no response. 2. This petition is filed by the wife requesting transfer of O.P.No.80 of 2011 from Family Court, Thiruvalla to Family Court, Kottayam, at Ettumanoor. That is a petition filed by the respondent-husband for restitution of conjugal rights. According to the petitioner, she has filed O.P.Nos.43 of 2011 and 45 of 2011 before Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor, the former for dissolution of marriage and the latter, for recovery of gold ornaments. It is also stated that petitioner is residing at Lakkattoor, in Kottayam District and that she has to travel long distance to Thiruvalla to contest the case. Learned counsel requests that in the circumstances the case pending in Family Court, Thiruvalla may be transferred to the Family Court, Kottayam, at Ettumanoor. 3. As the learned counsel submitted, so far no request for transfer of O.P.Nos.43 of 2011 and 45 of 2011 pending in Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor is made by the respondent-husband. It is only convenient for the parties that all the cases are disposed of by the same court. Moreover, petitioner is residing at Lakkoottoor, in Kottayam District and she has to travel long distance to Thiruvalla to contest the case. It is stated that her parents are aged and there is nobody to accompany her to Family Court, Thiruvalla. Tr.P.(C)No.236/2011 2 4. 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 held that while considering request for transfer of matrimonial proceedings convenience of the wife has to be looked into. True that does not mean that inconvenience if any of the opposite party need not be considered. 5. Having regard to the circumstances stated above, I am inclined to think that comparative hardship is more on petitioner if the request for transfer is not allowed. The inconvenience if any caused to the respondent could be reduced by directing that he need appear in the Family Court, Kottayam, at Ettumanoor only when his physical presence is required. I am inclined to allow the request for transfer. Resultantly this petition is allowed as follows: (i) O.P.No.80 of 2011 pending in Family Court, Thiruvalla is withdrawn from that court and made over to the Family Court, Kottayam, at Ettumanoor for trial and disposal. (ii) 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 for both parties. (iii) The transferee court shall post the cases - O.P.No.80 of Tr.P.(C)No.236/2011 3 2011 (transferred to that court) and O.P.Nos.43 of 2011and 45 of 2011 (pending in that court) as far as possible on the same dates. (iv) Respondent can appear in the transferee court through counsel except when his physical presence is required. I.A.No.1696 of 2011 will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks