IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 21ST OCTOBER 2011 / 29TH ASWINA 1933 Tr.P(C).No. 252 of 2011 -------------------------------- [O.P(HMA).NO.887/2010 OF FAMILY COURT, THIRUVALLA] .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- NEETHA, NEETHU BHAVANAM, THAZHAKKARA, MAVELIKARA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE (PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL), SRI. A.R. DILEEP. RESPONDENT: ---------------------- JAYARAJ, CHERUKARA VEEDU, THAMARAVUMKARA, KUTTOOR, THIRUVALLA - 689 106. BY THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/10/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: TR.P.(C).NO.252/2011: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:- ANNEXURE A1: COPY OF THE PETITION IN O.P. NO. 813/2010 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, ALAPPUZHA. ANNEXURE A2: COPY OF THE PETITION IN O.P.(H.M.A) NO.887/2010 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVALLA. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Prv. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Tr.P(C) No.252 of 201 ==================================== Dated this the 21st day of October, 2011 O R D E R Notice on this petition is served on the respondent but there is no response. 2. Petitioner filed this petition seeking transfer of O.P (HMA) No.887 of 2011 from the Family Court, Thiruvalla to the Family Court, Alappuzha. That is a petition filed by the respondent-husband for restitution of conjugal rights. It is submitted that petitioner is a resident of Thazhakkara in Alappuzha District while respondent belongs to Kuttoor, Thiruvalla. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that O.P(G&W) No.888 of 2010 filed by the respondent before Family Court, Thiruvalla for custody of minor child has already been transferred to the Family Court, Alappuzha. It is also submitted that petitioner has to travel all the distance from her place of residence to Thiruvalla to contest the case if the case is continued to be in that Court. 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 Tr.P(C) No.252 of 2011 -: 2 :- 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 of the husband has to be ignored. Having considered the relevant aspects and that O.P(G&W) No.888 of 2010 is pending in the Family Court, Alappuzha I am inclined to think that convenience of petitioner required transfer the case to the Family Court, Alappuzha. Moreover since O.P(G&W) No.888 of 2010 is pending in that Court it is the convenience of both parties that the cases are tried and disposed of by the same court. The difficulty if any of the respondent due to transfer of the case to Alappuzha can be reduced by permitting him to appear in the transferee court through counsel except when his physical presence is required. I am inclined to allow the petition. Resultantly, the Petition is allowed as follows: (a) O.P(HMA) No.887 of 2010 pending in the Family Court, Thiruvalla is withdrawn from that court and made over to the Family Court, Alappuzha for trial and disposal. Tr.P(C) No.252 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, Alappuzha shall ensure that O.P(HMA) No.887 of 2010 (transferred to it) and O.P(G&W) No.888 of 2010 (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