IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD FEBRUARY 2011 / 4TH PHALGUNA 1932 Tr.P(C).No. 398 of 2010 TO TRANSFER O.P.NO.1520 OF 2010 FROM FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM TO THE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PETITIONER: PETITIONER: ------------------------------ M.MAYA, D/O.MANMADHAN, STAFF NURSE, SREE RAMAKRISHNA MISSION HOSPITAL, SASTHAMANGALAM, KAWADIYAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.R.GOPU SRIC.R.SUDHEESH RESPONDENT: RESPONDENT: --------------- P.S.PRASANTH, S/O.SASIDHARAN, PULPARAMBIL HOUSE, HOUSING BOARD JUNCTION, MOOVATTUPUZHA P.O-695 603. THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ Tr.P.(C). NO. 398 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 23rd day of February, 2011 O R D E R The petitioner, the wife of the respondent, prays for transfer of O.P.No.1520 of 2010, pending before the Family Court, Ernakulam, to the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram, where O.P.No.282 of 2009 is pending. 2. O.P.No.1520 of 2010 was filed by the respondent/husband before the Family Court, Ernakulam, for divorce. The petitioner/wife filed O.P.No.282 of 2009 before the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram for restitution of conjugal rights. Both the cases are pending. 3. It is stated that the petitioner belongs to Kollam and at present, she is working as a staff nurse in a hospital at Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioner/wife states that the respondent is working in CRPF. But, it is not stated at which place he is working. Tr.P.(C) NO.398 OF 2010 :: 2 :: 4. It is stated that if O.P.No.1520 of 2010 is tried at Family Court, Ernakulam and if the petitioner is compelled to appear before the Family Court, Ernakulam, she will be put to great hardship and inconvenience. She finds it difficult to travel from Thiruvananthapuram to Ernakulam and attend the Family Court, Ernakulam. 5. Though notice was served on the respondent, there is no appearance for the respondent. 6. 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. 7. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that it is only just and proper to transfer O.P.No.1520 of 2010, pending before the Family Court, Ernakulam Tr.P.(C) NO.398 OF 2010 :: 3 :: to the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram, where O.P.No.282 of 2009 filed by the petitioner/wife against the respondent/husband is pending. Accordingly, the Transfer Petition is allowed. O.P.No.1520 of 2010, pending before the Family Court, Ernakulam, shall stand transferred to the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram, where O.P.No.282 of 2009 filed by the petitioner/wife against the respondent/husband is pending. The Family Court, Ernakulam shall transmit the records in O.P.No.1520 of 2010 to the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/