IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 1ST MARCH 2011 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1932 Tr.P(C).No. 35 of 2011() ----------------------------- ( OP.1928/2010 of FAMILY COURT,ERNAKULAM TO FAMILY COURT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM) .................... PETITIONERS: ----------------- 1. LEKHA THOMAS, W/O.JERRY @ THOMAS PHILIP, THAYYIL HOUSE, T.C.34/330, GVRRA (95), SHANGUMUGHAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 2. EDWIN THOMAS, AGED 6 YEARS, S/O.JERRY @ THOMAS PHILIP, THAYYIL HOUSE, T.C.34/330, GVRRA (95), SHANGUMUGHAM P.O., THIRUVNANTHAPURAM DISTRICT (MINOR) REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER LEKHA THOMAS. 3. ELNA THOMAS, AGED 2 ¾ YEARS, D/O.LEKHA THOMAS, THAYYIL HOUSE, T.C.34/330, GVRRA (95), SHANGUMUGHAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT (MINOR) REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER LEKHA THOMAS. BY ADV. SRI.R.V.SREEJITH RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- JERRY @ THOMAS PHILIP, S/O.MRS.SYSY PHILIPOSE, KALATHIL HOUSE, KUZHIYARA P.O., CHOTTANIKKARA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. R1 BY ADVS. SMT.T.S.MAYA (THIYADIL) SMT.PRINCY XAVIER THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: svs K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------ Tr.P(C).No.35 OF 2011 ------------------------------ Dated this the 1 st day of March, 2011 ORDER The petitioners are the wife and children of the respondent. The marriage between the first petitioner and the respondent took place on 6.1.2003. The children are residing with the mother at Thiruvananthapuram. The respondent belongs to Chottanikkara in Ernakulam district. 2. The first petitioner filed OP No.1139 of 2010 before the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram against the respondent praying for divorce, maintenance and value of gold ornaments. It is stated that after OP No.1139 of 2010 was filed, the husband filed OP No.1927 of 2010 for custody of the children and OP No.1928 of 2010 for restitution of conjugal rights. These two petitions were filed before the Family Court, Ernakulam. The prayer in this Transfer Petition is to transfer OP No.1928 of 2010 from the Family Court, Ernakulam to the Family Tr.P(C).No.35 OF 2011 2 Court, Thiruvananthapuram. 3. It is stated that petitioners 2 and 3, the minor children of the first petitioner are aged 6 years and 3 years. The father of the first petitioner is no more. The first petitioner states that she is depending on her aged mother. The first petitioner states that she is not in a position to attend the Family Court, Ernakulam by travelling such a long distance from Thiruvananthapuram to Ernakulam. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the decisions of 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) in support of his contention. Tr.P(C).No.35 OF 2011 3 5. The Transfer Petition is seriously opposed by the respondent. The counsel for the respondent contended that when the respondent attended the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram, there was threat from the side of the relatives of the first petitioner on two occasions. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that no such averment was made in any of the proceedings and no complaint was filed anywhere. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners undertake not to give room for any such grievance and they undertake not to harass or threaten the respondent. This submission is recorded. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Anindita Das v. Srijit Das (2006 KHC 1887 (SC)), wherein the Supreme Court noticed large number of Transfer Petitions filed by wives misusing various decisions of the Supreme Court in favour of women. In Anindita Das's case, the Supreme Court did not Tr.P(C).No.35 OF 2011 4 allow the Transfer Petition filed by the wife but directed the respondent/husband to provide 2 nd class A/C train tickets for the to and fro journey of the wife and another person and also for their stay in a three star hotel. The respondent in the present case is not prepared to do so. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent is prepared to provide only the bare minimum travel expense of the first petitioner in the 2 nd class non A/C. 7. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the distance the wife has to travel from Thiruvananthapuram to Ernakulam, the fact that the respondent/husband has to attend the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram for conducting OP No.1139 of 2010, and also the fact that the first petitioner has to maintain the children aged only 6 years and 3 years, and also taking note of the reluctance of the respondent to provide for the travel and stay of the petitioners, I am inclined Tr.P(C).No.35 OF 2011 5 to allow the Transfer petition. Accordingly, OP No.1928 of 2010 pending before the Family Court, Ernakulam shall stand transferred to the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The Family Court, Ernakulam shall transmit the records to the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The parties shall appear before the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram on 4 th April, 2011. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE. cms