IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 15TH MAGHA 1932 Tr.P(C).No. 11 of 2011 TO TRANSFER OP.694/2009 FROM THE FAMILY COURT, ALAPPUZHA TO FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM AT ETTUMANOOR. PETITIONER: -------------------- SMITHA, D/O.MOHANA CHANDRAN MENON, NARAYANAPURAM HOUSE, KULASEKHARAMANGALAM P.O., VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.P.K.SANTHAMMA RESPONDENT: --------------- SUNIL KUMAR, S/O.IMAVATHY AMMA SARNGAPURAM HOUSE, PALLIPPURAM P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA, PIN-688541. THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ Tr..P.(C). NO. 11 OF 2011 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 4th day of February, 2011 O R D E R The petitioner, the wife of the respondent, filed three cases before the Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor against the respondent. Those cases are: (1) M.C.No.393 of 2010, claiming maintenance, (2) O.P.No.722 of 2010 for return of ornaments and money given at the time of marriage, and (3) O.P.No.723 of 2010 for divorce. The above three cases are pending. 2. The respondent filed O.P.No.694 of 2009 before the Family Court, Alappuzha against the petitioner for divorce. That case is also pending. 3. The prayer in the Transfer Petition is to transfer O.P.No.694 of 2009, pending before the Family Court, Alappuzha, to the Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor, where the aforesaid three cases are pending. Tr.P.(C) NO.11 OF 2011 :: 2 :: 4. Though notice was served on the respondent, there is no appearance. It is stated that the petitioner has no job and that there is no independent income for her livelihood. It is stated that if the petitioner is compelled to appear before the Family Court, Alappuzha, she will be put to great hardship. 5. The Supreme Court in Sumitha Singh v. Kumar Sanjay and another (2001) 10 SCC 41), Mangla Patil Kale v. Sanjeev Kumar Kale ((2003) 10 SCC 280) and Rajwinder Kaur v. Balwinder Singh ((2003) 11 SCC 726) held that the inconvenience caused to the wife, if no transfer is made, should be taken note of. 6. If the petitions for divorce are heard and disposed of by different Family Courts, it is also likely that conflicting decisions may arise. 7. Taking into account all the relevant facts, the comparative inconveniences of the parties in case of transfer and also taking note of the fact that the petitioner is unemployed and also the fact that the respondent has to contest three cases at Family Court, Kottayam, I am of the view that it is only just and proper to transfer O.P.No.694 Tr.P.(C) NO.11 OF 2011 :: 3 :: of 2009, pending before the Family Court, Alappuzha to the Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor. Accordingly, the Transfer Petition is allowed. O.P.No.694 of 2009, pending before the Family Court, Alappuzha, shall stand transferred to the Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor. The Family Court, Alappuzha shall transmit the records in O.P.No.694 of 2009 to the Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/