IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 14TH OCTOBER 2010 / 22ND ASWINA 1932 Tr.P(C).No. 266 of 2009() ------------------------- OP(HMA).808/2008 of FAMILY COURT,KOLLAM .................... PETITIONER ------------------------------ B.GIRIJADEVI AMMA, W/O.C.K.GOPINATHAN NAIR, 21 HEERA GARDENS, PANGAPPARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.R.GOPU SRIC.R.SUDHEESH SRI.J.NARAYANA PILLAI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- C.K.GOPINATHAN NAIR, S/O.MADHAVAN NAIR, CHITTAMATH VEEDU, KUTTOMPEROOR, MANNAR, CHENGANNUR TALUK. ADV. SRI.B.CHANDRA LAL THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Tr.P.(C) No.266 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of October, 2010. ORDER Petitioner/wife, aged about 53 years has filed this petition seeking transfer of O.P.(HMA)No.808 of 2008 of Family Court, Kollam to Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. It is stated that petitioner is residing at Pangappara, in Thiruvananthapuram District She has filed two cases (O.P.No.4 of 2008 and M.C.No.15 of 2008) against respondent/husband in the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram, the former for declaration of title over a property which stands in the name of respondent and the latter, claiming maintenance from the respondent. It is the stand of petitioner that she has to travel a long distance from her place of residence to Family Court, Kollam to contest O.P.(HMA) No.808 of 2008. Respondent opposes the petition contending that he is aged 72 years and that he has originally residing at Kuttomperoor, in Chengannur Taluk and now is residing at Kollam and that it is difficult for him to travel all the distance from Kollam to Thiruvananthapuram. To support that contention Exts.R1(a) and R1(b) are produced. 2. Admittedly petitioner is residing at Pangappara, in Thiruvananthapuram District. Going by the proceedings filed by respondent also it would appear that he was residing at Kuttomperoor, in Chengannur Taluk. Ext.R1(b) would show that a letter addressed to the respondent in that address Tr.P(C) No.266/2009 2 was re-directed to his address at Karunagappally, in Kollam District. But that letter is dated 07.10.2009. Assuming that he is now residing at Kollam, if the case is transferred to Thiruvananthapuram his inconvenience will be lessened since Thiruvananthapuram is nearly to Kollam than his original place of residence at Kuttomperoor, in Chengannur Taluk. He can travel by train from Kollam to Thiruvananthapuram and the travelling time is only around 1 ½ hours. 3. So far as the alleged illness of respondent is concerned, Ext.R1(a) is a medical certificate issued by an Ayurveda Physician stating that respondent is under his treatment for IVDP and lumbago since 22.09.2008. That certificate is dated 24.10.2009. It is not disputed that two cases filed by petitioner are pending in Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram from the year 2008 onwards. It is also not disputed that respondent is attending that court to contest the said cases. According to the learned counsel for respondent he is travelling by taxi to reach Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. Respondent has not so far sought transfer of the cases pending in Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram to Family Court, Kollam for any reason whatsoever. Since respondent is now residing at Karunagappally, in Kollam District his inconvenience to go to Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram will be considerably reduced as can travel by train and reach there by 1 ½ hours at the maximum. On the other hand, petitioner/wife aged 53 years is residing at Pangappara, in Thiruvananthapuram District and she has to contest the cases at two places, Thiruvananthapuram and Kollam. It Tr.P(C) No.266/2009 3 will be convenient for both parties if the cases are tried and disposed of by the same court. 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. True that does not mean that inconvenience if any of the husband need not be considered. Considering the hardship of petitioner and the circumstances stated above, I am inclined to allow this petition. Resultantly this petition is allowed in the following lines: i. O.P. (HMA) No.808 of 2008 of Family Court, Kollam is withdrawn from that court and made over to Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram for trial and disposal. ii. The transferor court shall, while transmitting records of the case to the transferee court fix the date for appearance of parties in the transferee court with due intimation to the counsel on both sides. iii. Transferee court shall ensure that as far as possible all the cases are posted on the same dates. Tr.P(C) No.266/2009 4 iv. It is made clear that except when physical presence of the respondent is required he can appear through counsel. I.A.No.2762 of 2009 will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks