IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2011 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1932 Tr.P(C).No. 40 of 2011() ------------------------ OP.26/2011 of FAMILY COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER ------------------------------ LAKSHMY.V.M, D/O.VALSALA,AGED 22 YEARS, RESIDING AT THIRUVATHIRA ,MUTHUKUZHY, VALLAMCODE, KALLIYOOR PO. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 042. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.MOHANAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- RAJEEV GOPAL.G,S/O.GOPALAN,AGED 30 YEARS RESIDING AT SREYAS, KUNNATHUPARAMBU, THEKKUMBHAGOM, PAVANKULANGARA TEMPLE ROAD, THRIPUNITHURA PO, ERNAKULAM 682 301. ADV. SRI.A.S.SASIDHARAN FOR R1 THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- Tr.P.(C).No.40 of 2011 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of March, 2011 ORDER The petitioner, the wife of the respondent herein, is the respondent in O.P.No.26 of 2011 on the file of the Family Court, Ernakulam. O.P.No.26 of 2011 was filed by the respondent for restitution of conjugal rights. Even before that case was filed, the petitioner/wife had filed M.C.No.55 of 2010 on the file of the court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I, Neyyattinkara under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. That case is also pending. It is submitted that the petitioner had also filed a complaint alleging offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code against the respondent before the court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Neyyattinkara and that case is also pending. Tr.P.(C) No.40/2011 2 2. The petitioner belongs to Thiruvananthapuram. The respondent belongs to Thripunithura at Ernakulam. The marriage between the parties took place at Thiruvananthapuram. It is stated that the petitioner is residing in the parental home. It is stated that the father of the petitioner is an agriculturist and the mother is a Nurisng Assistant working at Thiruvananthapuram. It is stated that the petitioner is not in a position to travel 250 Kms. from Thiruvananthapuram to Ernakulam to attend the Family Court, Ernakulam. 3. The Supreme Court in Sumita Singh vs. Kumar Sanjay and another (2001 (10) SCC 41), Rajwinder Kaur vs. Balwinder Singh (2003(11) SCC 726) and Mangla Patil Kale vs. Sanjeev Kumar Kale (2003(10) SCC 280) held that the inconvenience caused to the wife, if no transfer is made, should be taken note of. Tr.P.(C) No.40/2011 3 Taking into account the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the request made by the petitioner is liable to be granted. Accordingly, the Transfer Petition is allowed. O.P.No.26 of 2011 pending before the Family Court, Ernakulam is transferred to the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The Family court, Ernakulam shall transmit the records to the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. K.T.SANKARAN JUDGE csl