IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 23RD NOVEMBER 2010 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA 1932 Tr.P(C).No. 326 of 2010() ------------------------- OP(Div.).1035/2010 of FAMILY COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER (S): -------------------- RENJINIMOL K.R., D/O.RAVINDRAN K.K., AGED 26 YEARS, RESIDING AT KALLASARIPARAMBIL HOUSE, KURUMULLOOR P.O., KANAKKARY VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW PHILIP EDAPPALLIL SRI.DELEEP RAJ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- SHINOJ K.R., S/O.K.K.RAGAVAN, AGED 28 YEARS, KSRTC EMPLOYEE, KADAVITHARA HOUSE, KANJIRAMATTOM P.O., AMBALLOOR VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682315. ADV. SRI.M.R.NANDAKUMAR THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Tr.P.(C) No.326 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of November, 2010. ORDER Respondent inspite of service of notice remained absent. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner. 2. Petitioner/wife has filed this petition seeking transfer of O.P.(Div.) No.1035 of 2010 from Family Court, Ernakulam to Family Court, Ettumanoor. That is a petition filed by the respondent/husband. In the meantime petitioner has filed O.P.No.935 of 2010 for return of money and gold ornaments and herself and her child have filed M.C.No.278 of 2010 seeking maintenance, both against the respondent in Family Court, Ettumanoor. It is stated that she is a resident of Kanakkary, near Ettumanoor and that Family Court, Ettumanoor is situated 7 kms. away from her house while she has to travel about 65 kms. to Ernakulam to contest O.P.(Div.) No.1035 of 2010. It is also stated that since respondent is a resident of Kanjiramattom distance he has to travel to Family Court, Ettumanoor is only 35 kms. Learned counsel in the circumstances submits that the case pending in Family Court, Ernakulam may be transferred to Family Court, Ettumanoor. Tr.P.(C) No.326/2010 2 3. 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. True that does not mean that inconvenience if any of the husband need not be considered. 4. It is not disputed that two cases filed by the petitioner are pending in Family Court, Ettumanoor. Respondent has to appear in that court to contest those cases. Till now, no request is made by the respondent to transfer those cases. If the cases are tried at Family Court, Ettumanoor it will be convenient to the petitioner as she can reach that Court travelling 7 kms. Having regard to the circumstances I am of the view that the comparative hardship is more on petitioner than the inconvenience that may be caused to the respondent in case request is allowed. I am inclined to allow this petition. Resultantly this petition is allowed in the following lines: (i) O.P. (Div.) No.1035 of 2010 pending in Family Court, Ernakulam is withdrawn from that court and made over to Family Court, Ettuanoor 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 Tr.P.(C) No.326/2010 3 court with due intimation to the counsel for both parties. (iii) The transferee court shall ensure that all the cases are posted on the same dates, as far as possible. (iv) Respondent can appear in the transferee court through counsel except when his physical presence is required. I.A.No.2619 of 2010 will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks