IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2010 / 2ND ASHADHA 1932 Tr.P(C).No. 4 of 2010() ----------------------- OP(HMA).1171/2009 of FAMILY COURT, ETTUMANOOR .................... PETITIONER ------------------------------ BINDU.K.S., D/O.LATE R.KUTTAPPAN NAIR, KSHETHRA KUNNIL HOUSE, SADANANDAPURAM, VETTIKKAVALA VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- BABU.P.S, S/O.A.SIVADASAN, VAIDYA NIVAS, VAZHAPPALLY P.O., CHANGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE FOR R1 SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE FOR R1 SMT.ACHU SUBHA ABRAHAM FOR R1 SRI.NIKHIL GEORGE FOR R1 SMT.N.ASWATHY FOR R1 SMT.DIVYA KRISHNAN FOR R1 THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Tr.P.(C) No.4 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2010. ORDER The wife seeks transfer of O.P.(HMA) No.1171 of 2009 from the Family Court, Ettumanoor to Family Court, Kottarakkara where she has filed O.P.No.981 of 2009 against the respondent for return of gold ornaments and other reliefs. Petitioner/wife stated that she is a resident of Sadanandapuram near Kottarakkara and that she has to travel a long to reach Family Court, Ettumanoor where respondent/husband has filed the petition for dissolution of marriage. Learned counsel for respondent states that respondent has raised objection regarding jurisdiction of Family Court, Kottarakkara to entertain O.P.No.981 of 2009. Learned counsel also states that respondent is working at Kottayam and that if the case is transferred to the Family Court, Kottarakkara it will cause inconvenience to him. 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 ofcourse does not mean that the inconvenience of the husband has to be ignored. Petitioner has filed O.P.No.981 of 2009 in the Family Court, Kottarakkara. Whether or not that court has jurisdiction to entertain that petition is a matter which that court has to decide and it is not required to go into that question in this proceeding. It is open to the respondent to urge his objection if any concerning jurisdiction of the Family Court, Kottarakkara to entertain O.P.No.981 of 2009 in his counter statement. Tr.P.C.No.4/2010 2 2. O.P(HMA) No.1171 of 2009 is a petition filed by respondent/husband against petitioner/wife in the Family Court, Ettumanoor. Having considered the place of residence of petitioner, there is merit in the contention of petitioner that she has to travel a long to reach Family Court, Ettumanoor. I consider that it is very inconvenient to a lady to travel such a long distance. On the other hand since respondent is a resident of Changanassery without much difficulty he can go to Kottarakkara. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case I am inclined to allow this petition. Resultantly this petition is allowed in the following lines: i. O.P.(HMA) No.1171 of 2009 pending in Family Court, Ettumanoor is withdrawn from that court and transferred to Family Court, Kottarakkara. 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. I.A.No.29 of 2010 will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks