IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2011 / 31ST ASHADHA 1933 Tr.P(C).No. 24 of 2011() ---------------------------------- OP.342/2008 of FAMILY COURT, THODUPUZHA .................... PETITIONERS ----------------------- 1. SHINOJ @ JOSEPH, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.VARGHESE, KALLUMMACKAL HOUSE, SPRING VALLEY.P.O., PERIYAR VILLAGE, PEERMADE TALUK. (KUMALY POLICE STATION). 2. VARGHESE, S/O.JOSEPH, KALLUMMACKAL HOUSE, SPRING VALLEY.P.O., PERIYAR VILLAGE, PEERMADE TALUK. (KUMALY POLICE STATION). 3. MARY VARGHESE, W/O.VARGHESE, KALLUMMACKAL HOUSE, SPRING VALLEY.P.O., PERIYAR VILLAGE, PEERMADE TALUK. (KUMALY POLICE STATION). BY ADVS. SRI.C.K.VIDYASAGAR SRI.P.CHANDY JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- DELSIYA B.MAGIN, D/O.BONNEY, AGED 21 YEARS, THARAYIL PARAMBIL HOUSE, CHERIYA KADAVU, KANNAMALY.P.O., COCHIN. (PUTHIYANADA POLICE STATION) 682 008. R1 BY ADV. SRI.N.RATHEES, SMT.SUMA RATHEESH. THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/07/2011, ALONG WITH TPC NO. 37 OF 2011 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss TPC. NO.24/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES A1:- COPY OF THE OP. DIVORCE 342/2008 BEFORE FAMILY COURT, THODUPUZHA FILED BY THE IST PETITIONER AGAINST THE RESPONDENT. A2:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 14.9.2010 IN TRANSFER PETITION NO.330/2009 BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA. A3:- COPY OF THE OP. 2112/2010 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT AGAINST THE IST PETITIONER AND HIS PARENTS BEFORE FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM. A4:- COPY OF THE MC. 211/2010 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT AGAINST THE IST PETITIONER BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES NIL:- TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE tss THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Tr.P(C) No.24 of 2011 And Tr.P(Crl.) No. 37 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2011 O R D E R These petitions are for transfer of O.P. No.2112 of 2010 and M.C. No.211 of 2010 from Family Court, Ernakulam to Family Court, Thodupuzha. Request for transfer is being made by the husband in both the cases as he is residing at Kumali and it is quite inconvenient for him to travel all the distance from his place of residence to Family Court, Ernakulam to contest the cases. It is also pointed out that as per order on Tr.P(C) No.330 of 2009 this Court has transferred O.P. No.1644 of 2008 from Family Court, Ernakulam to Family Court, Thodupuzha having regard to the inconvenience of petitioner-husband to travel all the distance. 2. Learned counsel for respondent submitted that if the cases are transferred respondent has to travel all the distance from her place of residence to Thodupuzha to contest the cases. It is also prayed that if this Court is inclined to transfer O.P. No.2112 of 2010, M.C. No.211 of 2010 may not be transferred to Family Court, Thodupuzha since following the order that may be Tr.P(C) Nos.24 & 37 of 2011 -: 2 :- passed in that case respondent-wife has to file regular petitions for realization of the amount and that may require respondent to go to Thodupuzha every month for realization of the amount. 3. Having heard counsel on both sides I find some justification in the objection of respondent so far as transfer of M.C. No.211 of 2010 Is concerned. If ultimately that case is allowed and petitioner-husband is directed to pay maintenance, respondent-wife will have to go to Thodupuzha every month for filing petitions for recovery of the amount and some times she may have to return empty handed as well. In the circumstances, request for transfer of M.C. No.211 of 2010 cannot be allowed. However having regard to the circumstances stated I am inclined to allow the request for transfer O.P. No.2112 of 2010. Resultantly, these petitions are disposed of in the following lines: (a) Tr.P(C) No.24 of 2011 is allowed. O.P. No.2112 of 2010 pending in Family Court, Ernakulam is withdrawn from that court and made over to Family Court, Thodupuzha for trial and disposal. Tr.P(C) Nos.24 & 37 of 2011 -: 3 :- (b) 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 on both sides. (c) It is made clear that except when physical presence of respondent-wife in the transferee court is required she can appear through counsel. (d) Tr.P(Crl.) No.37 of 2011 shall stand dismissed. All pending Interlocutory Applications will stand dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv