IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN MONDAY, THE 1ST MARCH 2010 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1931 Tr.P(C).No. 37 of 2010() --------------------------- OP.32/2010 of FAMILY COURT, NEDUMANGAD .................... PETITIONER --------------------- FATHIMA SHOBANA, W/O.MOHAMMED SHERIF, AGED 28 YEARS, RESIDING AT 39/2090(2), I.H.H.H.MANZIL, THUNDUVILAKATHU COMPOUND, ATTAKULANGARA, CHALAI.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. SMT.MAJIDA.S MR.K.RAJESH KANNAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- MOHAMMED SHERIF (RAJAN), S/O.LATE ABDUL AZEEZ, AGED 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT U.P.IX/359 (B), DARSAN NAGAR, PEROORKADA.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY ADV. MR.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss P. BHAVADASAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Tr.P.(C). No. 37 of 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 1st day of March, 2010. ORDER This is a petition filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking for a transfer of O.P. 32 of 2010 pending before the Family Court, Nedumangadu to Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. 2. Petitioner married the respondent on 5.12.2004. They took up residence in the matrimonial house. Complaint of the petitioner is that she has been deserted by the respondent on 8.2.2007. Efforts to bring about a settlement failed. Disputes arose between them and litigations sprung up. It is claimed by the petitioner that Talaq was pronounced by the respondent. Petitioner initiated proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. 3. Petitioner points out that initially in O.P.832 of 2007, the disputes between them were settled and the O.P. was allowed and the couple started living Tr.P(C).37/2010. 2 together. It is pointed out that again disputes arose between the couple and the respondent filed O.P.(G&W) 1017 of 2009 before the Family Court, Nedumangadu. Petitioner approached this court seeking transfer of O.P. (G&W) 1017 of 2009 from Family Court, Nedumangadu to Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram and that was allowed. The respondent then filed O.P.32 of 2010 for declaring the second marriage as null and void, and that is pending before the Family Court, Nedumangadu. Petitioner points out that if both the cases, O.P.32 of 2010 and O.P.(G&W) 1017 of 2009, are tried by the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram, she would be put to least inconvenience and difficulty. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent points out that the respondent has no objection in transferring the case. His only prayer is that both the cases may be disposed of as expeditiously as possible. In the light of the stand taken by the respondent, it is unnecessary to go into the merits of the case. O.P. 32 of 2010 pending before the Family court, Nedumangad is Tr.P(C).37/2010. 3 transferred to the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The request made by the learned counsel for the respondent seems to be very reasonable. Therefore there will be a direction to the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram to try and dispose of O.P.32 of 2010 and O.P.1017 of 2009 as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sb.