IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 25TH OCTOBER 2011 / 3RD KARTHIKA 1933 Tr.P(C).No. 242 of 2011() ------------------------------ OP.1008/2011 of FAMILY COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER: ----------------- SREEKALA @ KALA MURALEEDHARAN, AGED 41 YEARS, W/O. MURALIDHARAN, RESIDING AT PERUMPILLIKALA, PUTHENVEEDU, MYLOM.P.O, INJAKKADU - 691 560, KOTTARAKKARA. BY ADV. SMT.I.S.LAILA RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- MURALIDHARAN PILLAI, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.P.P. PRABHAKARAN PILLAI, MOHANAVILASAM, POOVATTOOR EAST, KALAYAPURAM.P.O, KOTTARAKKARA NOW RESIDING AT EDATHYMALAI, MUNRA 2, MULAVARIKAL ROAD, KONTHURUTHY, OPPOSITE ST.JOHNS LP SCHOOL, KONTHURUTHY, THEVARA.P.O, KOCHI -13. ADV. SMT.J.SHEEBA MARIAM THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: svs TPC. NO. 242/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE 1:COPY OF THE OP. NO.1008/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM. ANNEXURE 2:COPY OF THE SAID IA. NO.2294/2001 IN OP. NO.1008/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM. ANNEXURE 3:COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 05/01/2011 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN TRANSFER OP. NO.391/2010. ANNEXURE 4:COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 05/01/2011 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN TRANSFER OP. NO.392/2010. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Tr.P.(C) No.242 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of October, 2011. ORDER This petition is filed by the wife seeking transfer of O.P.No.1008 of 2011 from the Family Court, Ernakulam to the Family Court, Kottarakkara. That is a petition filed by the respondent-husband for recovery of money. Petitioner, aged 41 years is residing near Kottarakkara. On account of inconvenience in going to Ernakulam to contest the case she seeks transfer of the case. 2. The petition is opposed by the respondent. It is contended that in O.P.No.1008 of 2011 immovable property situate at Cherthala is placed under attachment to secure recovery of the amount that may be decreed in that case. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that the child of the parties is residing with the respondent at Ernakulam, and is undergoing schooling at Ernakulam and that if respondent is asked to go to Kottarakkara he will not be able to take care of the child. It is also pointed out that petitioner has filed a case under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act at Ernakulam and in connection with that, petitioner is coming to Ernakulam and hence she has no difficulty to contest the case at Family Court, Ernakulam. 3. It is not disputed that O.P.Nos.147 of 2010 and 1337 of 2010 filed by the respondent have already been transferred to the Family Court, Kottarakkara as per orders of this Court in Tr.P.(C) Nos.391 and 392 of 2010. It Tr.P(C)No.242/2011 2 is submitted that petitioner is aged 41 years and is a permanent resident of Kottarakkara. Permanent residence of the respondent is also at Kottarakkara though presently he is staying at Thevara, Ernakulam. 4. 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. True that does not mean that the inconvenience if any of the opposite party need not be considered. 5. Having regard to the circumstances stated above, I am inclined to think that comparative hardship is more on petitioner if the request for transfer is not allowed. Petitioner, a lady aged 41 years has to travel long distance. Somebody has to accompany her. That involves expenses as well.The inconvenience that may be caused to the respondent could be reduced by directing that he can appear in the transferee court through counsel except when his physical presence is required. I must bear in mind that O.P.Nos.147 of 2010 and 1337 of 2010 filed by the respondent in the Family Court, Ernakulam are already transferred to the Family Court, Kottarakkara as per order of this Court in Tr.P.(C) Nos.391 and 392 of 2010, that order remains in force and those cases are pending in the Family Court, Kottarakkara. In that situation it is appropriate that all the cases are tried and disposed of by the same court. Hence I am inclined to allow the request for transfer. Tr.P(C)No.242/2011 3 Resultantly this petition is allowed as follows: (i) O.P.No.1008 of 2011 pending in Family Court, Ernakulam is withdrawn from that court and transferred to the Family Court, Kottarakkara 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.1008 of 2011 (being transferred to that court) and O.P.Nos.147 of 2010 and 1337 of 2010 (pending in that court) as far as possible on the same dates. (iv) Respondent can appear in the transferee court through counsel except when his physical presence is required. I.A.No.1713 of 2011 will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks