IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 19TH JULY 2011 / 28TH ASHADHA 1933 TR.P(C).NO. 91 OF 2011() ------------------------------------ TO TRANSFER OP.1444/2010 OF FAMILY COURT, TRIVANDRUM TO FAMILY COURT, NEDUMANGADU .................... PETITIONER: --------------------- SEEMA V.K., D/O.VIJAYAKUMARI AMMA, AGED 28 YEARS, REIDING AT "SYEMANTHAKAM", CHERIYAKONNI, ARUVIKKARA VILLAGE, NEDUMANGADU TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.RAM MOHAN.G. SRI.G.P.SHINOD RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- S.S.PRAVEEN, S/O.LATE R.SUKUMARAN NAIR, AGED 33 YEARS, "ABHAYAM", MRA-22, MUTTADA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695025 AND PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT "PRAVEENA", T.C.9/565, KALLAMPALLY LANE, SREEKARIYAM P.O. ULLOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SMT.SREEDEVI KYLASANATH SMT.SHALEENA RAJAN THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: TR.P(C) NO.91 OF 2011 APPENDIX --------------- PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: ---------------------------------- ANNEXURE-A A TRUE COPY OF O.P. NO.1210 OF 2010 ON THE FILE OF THE FAMILY COURT, NEDUMANGADU. ANNEXURE-B A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT AS O.P. NO.1444 OF 2010 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: ANNEXRE R1(a) TRUE COPIES OF THE MEDICAL REPORT ISSUED FROM MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ANNEXURE R1(b) TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE THE SUB INSPECTOR, NEDUMANGADU POLICE STATION ON 19.02.2009. ANNEXURE R1(c) TRUE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF THE PETITION ISSUED FROM NEDUMANGADU POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE R1(d) TRUE COPY OF THE COMPROMISE PETITION DATED 4TH NOVEMBER, 2009 SIGNED BY THE PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE R1(e) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN O.P. NO.146 OF 2009. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Tr.P(C) No.91 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 19th day of July, 2011 O R D E R This petition is for transfer of O.P. No.1444 of 2010 from Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram to Family Court Nedumangad. Petitioner-wife, aged about 28 years and residing in Aruvikkara Village has filed O.P. No.1210 of 2010 in Family Court, Nedumangad against respondent-husband for past and future maintenance for herself and the child. Respondent-husband, aged about 33 years and residing in Ulloor Village filed O.P. No.1444 of 2010 in Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram for restitution of conjugal rights. It is stated that petitioner has to travel all the distance from Nedumangad to Thiruvananthapuram to contest the case. 2. Petition is opposed by the respondent who contended that earlier proceedings were settled and thereafter fresh proceedings are initiated. It is also contended that when respondent went to Nedumangad to appear in the Family Court there, he was assaulted by the relatives of petitioner. He was admitted in the Medical College Hospital in connection with that and in support of that Ext.R1(a), is produced. Tr.P(C) No.91 of 2011 -: 2 :- 3. True that in Ext.R1(a) there is a statement that respondent was assaulted by ten persons at Nedumangad. But from that alone no inference is possible that there was any such incident as pointed out by the respondent. At any rate, the apprehension of respondent can be allayed by permitting him to appear in the Family Court, Nedumangad through counsel except when his physical presence is required. 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 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 of the husband has to be ignored. Petitioner is a young lady aged about 28 years and having regard to the circumstances stated I am inclined to think that the hardship is comparatively more on petitioner in case the request for transfer is not allowed. Hence I am inclined to allow the petition. Resultantly, the Petition is allowed in the following lines: (a) O.P.No.1444 of 2010 pending in Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram is withdrawn Tr.P(C) No.91 of 2011 -: 3 :- from that court and made over to Family Court, Nedumangad for trial and disposal. (b) 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 on both sides. (c) Family Court, Nedumangad shall ensure that O.P. No.1444 of 2010 (transferred to it) and O.P. No.1210 of 2010 (pending in that court) are posted as far as possible on the same dates. (d) It is made clear that except when physical presence of respondent in the transferee court is necessary he can appear through counsel. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv