IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 6TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 15TH BHADRA 1932 Tr.P(C).No. 244 of 2010() ------------------------- OP.774/2009 of FAMILY COURT,THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER ------------------------------ K.PRIYA, AGED 21 YEARS, D/O.VISHNU EMBRANTHIRI, PUTHENMADAM, KOLAPPARAMBA P.O.- 690001, MANJERI VIA., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.PAVITHRAN SRI.M.P.JAYANANDAN SRI.E.M.UNNIKRISHNAN (MANJERI) SRI.NIAS MOOPAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- KRISHNAKUMAR, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.NEELAKANDAN NAMBOODIRI, PARIYARATH ILLAM, PAMPADI POST, THIRUVILLAMALA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. ADV. SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMI SRI.R.SREEHARI THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Tr.P.(C) No.244 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of September, 2010. ORDER This petition is filed by the wife seeking transfer of O.P. No.774 of 2009 from Family Court, Thrissur to Family Court, Malappuram where she has filed M.C.No.721 of 2010 for maintenance and O.P.No.690 of 2010 for return of gold ornaments and other reliefs against respondent/husband. Petitioner is a resident of Kolapparamba, in Malappuram District while respondent/husband belongs to Thiruvillamala, in Thrissur District. It is stated that petitioner has to travel about 100 kms. from her place of residence to Family Court, Thrissur to contest the case filed by respondent. There is nobody to accompany her. Hence the request for transfer. 2. I have heard learned counsel for both sides. It is not disputed that two cases filed by petitioner/wife are pending in Family Court, Malappuram. Learned counsel for petitioner states that petitioner has to travel about 100 kms. from her place of residence to Thrissur to contest O.P.No.774 of 2009 filed by respondent/husband. Tr.P.(C) No.244/2010 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. True that does not mean that inconvenience if any of the husband need not be considered. 4. Considering comparative hardship of the parties and also considering the fact that two cases are already pending in Family Court, Malappuram I am inclined to allow the request of petitioner. Resultantly this petition is allowed in the following lines: i. O.P. No.774 of 2009 pending in Family Court, Thrissur is withdrawn from that court and made over to Family Court, Malappuram for trial and disposal. ii. The transferor court shall, while transmitting records of the case to the transferee court fix date for appearance of parties in the transferee court with due intimation to the counsel on both sides. Tr.P.(C) No.244/2010 3 iii. It is made clear that except when physical presence of respondent is required in the transferee court it is open to him to appear through counsel. iv. Transferee court shall ensure that as far as possible all the cases are posted on the same dates. I.A.No.1933 of 2010 will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks