IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2011 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1933 Tr.P(C).No. 96 of 2011() ------------------------ OP.(Divorce) NO.629/2010 of FAMILY COURT, NEDUMANGAD .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- ANANDAVALLY K.B., W/O. S.ARJUAN, MUTHIYARKULAM HOUSE, EKAROOL P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.LAL GEORGE SMT.M.J.INDUJA RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ S.ARJUNAN, S/O. SUKUMARAN, POOVINAMVILAKADAYIL HOUSE, KALATHUKAL, KARAKULAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. -------------------------------------- Tr.P.(C).No.96 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of May, 2011 O R D E R The prayer made by the petitioner is to transfer O.P. (Divorce) No.629 of 2010 pending before the Family Court, Nedumangad to the Family Court, Kozhikode. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent took place on 31.3.2009. It was the second marriage for both the parties. The husband of the petitioner passed away. The petitioner has no children. The respondent has two children in the first wedlock. Both his daughters were married away. 2. There was a mediation between the parties before the Lok Adalath. It was agreed by the respondent to pay ` 2,000/- per month to the petitioner as maintenance. It is alleged that the respondent failed to pay the maintenance. He filed O.P.(Divorce) No.629 of 2010 before the Family Tr.P.(C) No.96/2011 2 Court, Nedumangad for divorce. 3. The petitioner states that her parents are not alive. She is working in a tailoring institute and she is staying in a hostel at Manjeri. It is stated that it is not possible for her to travel from Manjeri to Nedumangad for the purpose of attending the Family Court. She does not have sufficient income to meet the travelling expenses. It is stated that there is nobody to accompany her from Manjeri to Nedumangad to attend the Family Court. 4. Though notice was served in the Transfer Petition, there is no appearance for the respondent. 5. 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 Tr.P.(C) No.96/2011 3 inconvenience caused to the wife, if no transfer is made, should be taken note of. 6. In the facts and circumstances, the Transfer Petition is allowed. O.P.(Divorce) No.629 of 2010 pending before the Family Court, Nedumangad shall stand transferred to the Family Court, Kozhikode. The Family Court, Nedumangad shall transmit the records to the Family Court, Kozhikode. The Transfer Petition is allowed as above. K.T.SANKARAN JUDGE csl