IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 18TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 27TH KARTHIKA 1933 Tr.P(C).No. 355 of 2011() -------------------------------- OP.1248/2011 of FAMILY COURT, NEDUMANGAD .................... PETITIONER (S): ------------------------- SALAHUDHEEN, S/O. AMEERKANNU, K.K.HOUSE, MUKKUNNAM, KUMMIL, KADAKKAL P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SAJU.S.A RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- SALEENA, D/O. SHERIFA BEEVI, SALEENA MANZIL, PUTHUSSERIMUKKU, EDAVOORKONAM, KALLAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN 695 605. BY ADV. SRI.LIJU. M.P THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss TPC. 355/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES A1:- COPY OF THE OP. 824/2011 DTD. 26.8.2011. A2:- COPY OF THE OP1248/2011 DTD. NIL. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES NIL:- TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- Tr.P(C).Nos.355 and 381 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 18th day of November, 2011 ORDER These petitions are filed by the husband and wife, respectively seeking transfer of the proceeding each has filed against the order, to the Court of their convenience. The wife has filed O.P.No.1248 of 2011 before the Family Court, Nedumangad seeking declaration of title over immovable property, return of value of ornaments etc. The husband has filed O.P.No.824 of 2011 in the Family Court, Kottarakkara for restitution of conjugal rights. While the husband seeks transfer of O.P.No.1248 of 2011 to the Family Court, Kottarakkara, the wife requests O.P.No.824 of 2011 to be transferred to the Family Court, Nedumangad. Learned counsel on both sides have argued on the hardship the parties suffer in case the request for transfer as they have made is not allowed. Learned counsel for the wife has also submitted that the wife has filed M.C.No.372 of 2011 in the Family Court, Nedumangad seeking maintenance from the husband. 2. The husband is a resident of Kadakkal, in Kollam district while the wife belongs to Kallambalam, in Thiruvananthapuram district. Learned counsel for the husband Tr.P(C).Nos.355 and 381 of 2011 -: 2 :- does not dispute that Nedumangad is nearer to the place of residence of wife though, according to the learned counsel the wife has to catch three buses to reach Nedumangad. But distance wise the Court at Nedumangad is more convenient to the wife. I must bear in mind that two proceedings initiated by the wife are pending in the Family Court, Nedumangad. 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 the request for transfer in matrimonial proceedings convenience of the wife has to be looked into. 3. Having regard to the circumstances stated, I am inclined to think that it is convenient that both proceedings are consolidated in the same Court. So far as the forum is concerned, convenience of wife requires that the cases are consolidated in the Court at Nedumangad. Resultantly these petitions are disposed of as follows: (I) Tr.P(C).No.355 of 2011 is dismissed. (II) Tr.P(C).No.381 of 2011 is allowed as follows: (a) O.P.No.824 of 2011 pending in the Tr.P(C).Nos.355 and 381 of 2011 -: 3 :- Family Court, Kottarakkara is withdrawn from that court and made over to Family Court, Nedumangad. (b) The transferor court shall transmit records of the case to the transferee court with due intimation to the counsel on both sides as to the date of appearance in the transferee court. (c) Parties can appear before the transferee Court through counsel except when their physical presence is required. (d) The Family Court, Nedumangad is directed to post all the cases between petitioner and the respondent transferred to and pending in that Court, as far as possible on the same dates. (THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-