IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH OCTOBER 2010 / 21ST ASWINA 1932 TR.P(C).NO. 278 OF 2010() -------------------------------------- MC.210/2010 OF FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- RAJESH.R., AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.LATE C.P.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR, SREENILAYAM, THURAVOOR P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT 688 532. BY ADV. SRI.T.R.JAGADEESH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ SAVITHA M.NAIR, D/O.SHRI.MOHANA CHANDRAN NAIR, KUNNATHU VEEDU, SANTHIPURAM P.O., NEDUNGADAPALLI, KARUKACHAL, CHENGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT- 686 545. ADV. SMT.LEKHA SURESH FOR R1 SRI.ASHOK SURESH FOR R1 THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Tr.P(C) No.278 of 2010 ==================================== Dated this the 13th day of October, 2010 O R D E R Heard both sides. 2. This petition is filed by the husband who is a resident of Thuravaoor seeking transfer of M.C. No.210 of 2010 and O.P. No.704 of 2010 from Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor to Family Court, Alappuzha. Respondent-wife is a resident of Karukachal, near Chenganassry in Kottayam District. According to the petitioner it is convenient to both parties that the cases are transferred to Family Court, Alappuzha. Learned counsel states that convenience of respondent also requires that all the pending case brought to Family Court, Alappuzha. Learned counsel states that O.P.No.80 of 2010 filed by petitioner in Family Court, Alappuzha is pending consideration of that court. After arguing the matter for sometime learned counsel for petitioner stated that case pending in Family Court, Alappuzha can also be brought to Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor but there may be a direction for early disposal of all the cases. Tr.P(C) No.278 of 2010 -: 2 :- 3. Even as per the allegation made by petitioner (though it is not admitted by the respondent) it would appear that according the petitioner, respondent is a sehizophrenic patient. Learned counsel for respondent states that Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor is nearer to the place of residence of respondent. 4. 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 proceedings convenience of the wife has to be looked into. Considering the views expressed by counsel on both sides I consider it proper to direct that case pending in Family Court, Alappuzha be transferred to Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor so that all the cases could be disposed of by the same court. Resultantly, this petition is disposed of in the following lines: Tr.P(C) No.278 of 2010 -: 3 :- (i) Request for transfer of M.C.No.210 of 2010 and O.P. No.704 of 2010 from Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor to Family Court, Alappuzha is rejected. (ii) O.P. No.80 of 2010 of Family Court, Alappuzha is withdrawn from that court and made over to Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor. (iii) The transferor court while transmitting records of O.P.No.80 of 2010 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. (iv) Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor shall ensure that O.P.No.80 of 2010 (transferred to that court from Family Court, Alappuzha) and M.C. No.210 of 2010 and O.P. No.704 of 2010 pending in that court shall be posted as far as possible on the same dates. Tr.P(C) No.278 of 2010 -: 4 :- (v) It is made clear that except when physical presence of parties in the transferee court is necessary they can appear through counsel. (vi) Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor is directed to dispose of the cases as early as possible. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv