IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2010 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 TR.P(C).NO. 327 OF 2010() ------------------------------------- OP.1724/2010 OF FAMILY COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER: -------------------- SHERIN THOMAS, AGED 30 YEARS, D/O.THOMAS P.T., EDATTUKUNNEL HOUSE, KOORACHUNDU AMSOM OF ATHIYODI DESOM,POST KALLANODE KOYILANDI TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB ABRAHAM SMT.KOCHUMOL KODUVATH RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- SHABEER HAMEED, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL HAMEED, RAYHAN, MANJALIPARAMBIL HOUSE, ERIYADU, KODUNGALLOR POST, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680664. ADV. SRI.P.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR SRI.C.S.DIAS SRI.N.K.SUBRAMANIAN THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Tr.P(C) No.327 of 2010 ==================================== Dated this the 01st day of December, 2010 O R D E R This petition is filed by the wife seeking transfer of O.P. No.1724 of 2010 from Family Court, Ernakulam to Family Court, Kozhikode. That is a petition filed by the respondent for restitution of conjugal rights. Petitioner has filed O.P. No.859 of 2010 in Family Court, Kozhikode seeking dissolution of marriage. Though there are certain allegations made against the respondent it is not necessary for me to go into those matters in this petition. 2. Petitioner-wife is a resident of Athiyodi desom in Koyilandi Taluk. She is working as a Cabin Crew in Air India Express which is an international air carrier. She says that on alternate days she has to fly to different places and since she is a resident of Koyilandy Taluk she finds it difficult to travel to Family Court, Ernakulam and contest the case. Learned counsel for respondent opposed the application contending that there is no valid reason to allow the request made by petitioner. 3. The Supreme Court in Sumitha Singh v. Kumar Tr.P(C) No.327 of 2010 -: 2 :- 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. That of course does not mean that inconvenience if any, of the husband has to be ignored. It is not disputed that petitioner has filed O.P. No.859 of 2010 in Family Court, Kozhikode for dissolution of marriage. Respondent has not so far requested transfer of that case to Family Court, Ernakulam for any reason whatsoever. It is stated by petitioner that she finds it difficult to travel all the distance from her place of residence to Family Court, Ernakulam and contest the case for which she is to be accompanied by some of her relatives. Necessarily that involves expenses also. Moreover it is also necessary that both the cases are tried and disposed of by the same court. Having regard to these aspects of the matter I am satisfied that the hardship petitioner has to suffer in case transfer is not ordered is more than the inconvenience that may be caused to the respondent if the request for transfer is allowed. Hence I am inclined to allow this petition. Resultantly, this petition is allowed in the following lines: Tr.P(C) No.327 of 2010 -: 3 :- (i) O.P.No.1724 of 2010 pending in Family Court, Ernakulam is withdrawn from that court and made over to Family Court, Kozhikode. (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 on both sides. (iii) Family Court, Kozhikode shall ensure that O.P. No.1724 of 2010 (transferred to that court) and O.P. No.859 of 2010 (pending in that court) are posted as far as possible on the same dates. (iv) It is made clear that except when physical presence of respondent in the transferee court is necessary he can appear through counsel. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv