IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 23RD DECEMBER 2011 / 2ND POUSHA 1933 TR.P(C).NO. 406 OF 2011() ------------------------------------ OP.969/2011 OF FAMILY COURT, THALASSERY PETITIONER-RESPONDENT: --------------------------------------- SOORYA JACOB, D/O.CHACKO, AGED 30, ADUPPUKALLINGAL HOUSE, NELLIKUTTY POST, CHEMPERI VIA, KANUUR. BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT SRI.K.N.ABHILASH SMT.R.LEELA RESPONDENT-PETITIONER: ----------------------------------------- MATHEW PHILIP, S/O. PHILIP AGED 36 YEARS, POONCHAL HOUSE, KELAKAM AMSOM DEOSM, VELLONNI POST, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR - 670 674. THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: TR.P(C) NO.406 OF 2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE A1. TRUE COPY OF THE OP 969/11 FILE OF THE FAMILY COURT, KANNUR UNDER SECTION 32 OF INDIAN DIVORCE ACT. ANNEXURE A2. TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION IN OP 450/11 DATED 1/7/2011 ON THE FILE OF FAMILY COURT KANNUR U/S.18 & 19 OF THE INDIAN DIVORCE ACT FILED BY THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Tr.P(C) No.406 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 23rd day of December, 2011 O R D E R Notice is served on the respondent but there is no response. 2. Petitioner-wife seeks transfer of O.P. No.969 of 2011 from the Family Court, Thalassery to the Family Court, Kannur. That is a petition filed by the respondent-husband for restitution of conjugal rights. Petitioner states that she has filed O.P. No.450 of 2011 in the family Court, Kannur for a declaration that marriage between her and the respondent is null and void. It is stated that petitioner is residing at Chemperi, in Kannur District which is far way from the Family Court, Thalassery. Learned counsel submitted that distance from the place of residence of petitioner to Thalassery is around 60 kms and that to reach Thalassery, petitioner has to pass by Kannur and travel the additional distance from Kannur. It is also stated that in view of the nature of relief prayed for in the petitions it is appropriate that both the cases disposed of by the same court. Tr.P(C) No.406 of 2011 -: 2 :- 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 proceedings convenience of the wife has to be looked into. Respondent has not so far requested for transfer of O.P. No.450 of 2011 pending in the Family Court, Kannur. Having regard to the nature of reliefs prayed for in the petitions it is appropriate that both the cases disposed of by the same court. I am satisfied that that comparative hardship is more on petitioner if request for transfer is not allowed. Inconvenience that may be caused to the respondent can be reduced by directing that he can appear in the transferee court through counsel except when his physical presence is required. Resultantly, Transfer Petition is allowed as follows: (a) O.P. No.969 of 2011 pending in the Family Court, Thalassery is withdrawn from that court and made over to the Family Court, Kannur for trial and disposal. Tr.P(C) No.406 of 2011 -: 3 :- (b) 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. (c) Family Court, Kannur shall ensure that O.P. No.969 of 2011 (transferred to it) and O.P. No.450 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