IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 27TH OCTOBER 2011 / 5TH KARTHIKA 1933 Tr.P(C).No. 323 of 2011() ----------------------------------- OP.NO.1214/2011 of FAMILY COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------ K.V.SHIJINA, D/O.K.V.CHANDRAN AND USHA, AGED 25 YEARS, KADAVATHUVALAPIL HOUSE, KOTTUR, SREEKANDAURAM P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.ANIL.D.KAITHAKKAL SRI.K.RAJESH SUKUMARAN SRI.K.K.SUSHEER RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------------ S.V.P.JITHENDRIYAN, S/O.K.VIDYANANDAN, 36 YEARS, SIVANANDAMANGALAM, ARAYOOR P.O., CHENKAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-695 122. BY THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts Tr.P(C).No. 323 of 2011() APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEX 1 COPY OF THE SERVED COPY OF O.P.NO.1214 OF 2011. ANNEX 2 COPY OF THE SUMMONS ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO.JUDGE sts THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Tr.P.(C) No.323 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of October, 2011. ORDER Respondent is served but there is no response. 2. This petition is filed by the wife seeking transfer of O.P.No.1214 of 2011 from the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram to the Family Court, Kannur. That is a petition filed by the respondent-husband for restitution of conjugal rights. It is stated by the learned counsel that petitioner is residing at Sreekandapuram, in Kannur District, that she has to travel more than 400 kms. to reach Thiruvananthapuram to contest the case and that it takes three days to go to Thiruvananthapuram and go back to her place of residence. It is stated that respondent has filed O.P.No.613 of 2011 in the Family Court, Kannur seeking custody of the children. 3. 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 held that while considering the request for transfer of matrimonial proceedings convenience of the wife has to be looked into. 4. Petitioner is aged about 25 years and she has to travel more than 400 kms. to reach Thiruvananthapuram to contest the case. As submitted by the Tr.P(C)No.323/2011 2 learned counsel it may take three days for her to go to Thiruvananthapuram to attend the court and go back to her place of residence. If respondent has filed O.P.No.613 of 2011 in the Family Court, Kannur it is appropriate that both the cases are tried and disposed of by the same court. Moreover, comparative hardship is more on petitioner if the request for transfer is not allowed. The inconvenience that may be caused to the respondent could be reduced by directing that he could appear in the Family Court, Kannur through counsel except when his physical presence is required. I am inclined to allow the request for transfer. Resultantly this petition is allowed as follows: (i) O.P.No.1214 of 2011 pending in the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram is withdrawn from that court and transferred to the Family Court, Kannur for trial and disposal. (ii) 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 for both parties. (iii) The transferee court shall post the cases - O.P.No.1214 of 2011 (being transferred to that court) and O.P.No.613 of 2011 (pending in that court) as far as possible on the same dates. (iv) Respondent can appear in the transferee court through Tr.P(C)No.323/2011 3 counsel except when his physical presence is required. I.A.No.2184 of 2011 will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks