IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 10TH MARCH 2011 / 19TH PHALGUNA 1932 Tr.P(C).No. 45 of 2011() ------------------------ OPHMA.1357/2010 of FAMILY COURT, NEDUMANGAD .................... PETITIONER ------------------------------ ATHIRA, W/O. SHIBUKUMAR, ATHIRA BHAVAN, THADICADU, AERAM, ANCHAL, PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.ANCHAL C.VIJAYAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- SHIBU KUMAR, S/O. BALAKRISHNA PILLAI, SREEKALANILAYAM, MUDAPURAM P.O., CHIRAYINKEEZHU TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.J.JAYAKUMAR FOR R THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------ Tr.P(C).No.45 OF 2011 ------------------------------ Dated this the 10 th day of March, 2011 ORDER The petitioner, the wife of the respondent, prays for transfer of OP (HMA) No.1357 of 2010 pending before the Family Court, Nedumangad to the Family Court, Kottarakara. 2. OP (HMA)No.1357 of 2010 was filed by the respondent before the Family Court, Nedumangad for a decree of divorce. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized within the jurisdiction of the Family Court, Kottarakara. The petitioner is residing at Anchal, Kollam District. It is stated that the respondent has filed the petition before the Family Court, Nedumangad only to cause hardship and inconvenience to the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner is not in a position to attend the Family Court, Nedumangad, travelling such a long distance from Anchal. The petitioner states that there is nobody to accompany her to Tr.P(C).No.45 OF 2011 2 Nedumangad and she apprehends danger to her life if she goes to Nedumangad. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 4. The Supreme Court in Sumitha Singh v. Kumar Sanjay and another ((2001) 10 SCC 41), Mangla Patil Kale v. Sanjeev Kumar Kale ((2003)10 SCC 280) and Rajwinder Kaur v. Balwinder Singh ((2003)11 SCC 726) held that the inconvenience caused to the wife, if no transfer is made, should be taken note of. 5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the prayer for transfer is liable to be allowed. 6. Accordingly, the Transfer Petition is allowed and OP (HMA) No.1357 of 2010 pending before the Family Court, Nedumangad is transferred to the Family Court, Tr.P(C).No.45 OF 2011 3 Kottarakara. The Family Court, Nedumangad shall transmit the records to the Family Court, Kottarakara. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE cms