IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 21ST NOVEMBER 2011 / 30TH KARTHIKA 1933 Tr.P(C).No. 339 of 2011() ------------------------------------ OP(DIV)NO.524/2011 of FAMILY COURT, ALAPPUZHA .................... PETITIONER ---------------------- SARAMMA JOHN, D/O. M.JOHNYKUTTY, VIMAL JYOTHI, HOUSE NO.64, VIDHYANAGAR, PATTATHANAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL SRI.T.PRASAD RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- THOMAS PAPPACHAN, S/O. P.T. PAPPACHAN, POOTHIYOTTU HOUSE, MATTOM, NORTH, THATTARAMBALAM, MAVELIKKARA.P.O., ALAPPUZHA-PIN-691101. BY THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/11/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts TP(C)NO.339/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEX 1 COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE FAMILY COURT, ALAPPUZHA TO THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: ANNEX 1 COPY OF THE PETITION IN O.P.(DIV)NO.524/2011 OF THE FAMILY COURT, ALAPPUZHA. ANNEX 2 COPY OF THE PETITION IN OP.NO.1101/2011 OF THE FAMILY COURT, KOLLAM. /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO.JUDGE sts THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Tr.P(C) No.339 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 21st day of November, 2011 O R D E R Petitioner-wife seeks transfer of O.P. No.524 of 2010 from the Family Court, Alappuzha to the Family Court, Kollam. That petition is filed by the respondent-husband for dissolution of marriage. Petitioner has filed O.P. No.1101 of 2011 in the Family Court, Kollam against the respondent for return of gold ornaments, money, maintenance etc. Petitioner states that she has to travel more than 80 kms from her place of residence to Alappuzha to contest the case and that there is nobody to accompany her. 2. Application is opposed by the respondent. Learned counsel contended that though petitioner has a contention that it is on getting notice in O.P. No.1101 of 2011 that respondent has filed O.P. No.524 of 2011 that is not factually correct. According to the learned counsel there is no reason to transfer the case. 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 Tr.P(C) No.339 of 2011 -: 2 :- proceedings convenience of the wife has to be looked into. It is not disputed that petitioner is residing at Pattathanam, in Kollam District. She claimed that she has to travel more than 80 kms. It is also stated that she has to look after her child aged 5 years and since her parents are old, there is nobody to accompany her. Respondent is a resident of Thattarambalam, in Mavelikkara. True that transfer of the case may cause some inconvenience to him also. O.P. No.1101 of 2011 is pending in Family Court, Kollam and respondent has not so far requested for transfer of that case for any reason whatsoever. It is convenient to both sides that the cases are consolidated in the same court. Having regard to the circumstances stated I am inclined to allow the request of petitioner. Resultantly, Transfer Petition is allowed as follows: (a) O.P. No.524 of 2011 pending in the Family Court, Alappuzha is withdrawn from that court and made over to the Family Court, Kollam for trial and disposal. (b) The transferor court while Tr.P(C) No.339 of 2011 -: 3 :- 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. (c) Family Court, Kollam shall ensure that O.P. No.524 of 2011 (transferred to it) and O.P. No.1101 of 2011 (pending in that court) are posted as far as possible on the same dates. (d) It is made clear that except when physical presence of respondent in the transferee court is necessary, he can appear through counsel. All pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv