Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY 2013 18TH POUSHA 193 Tr.P(C).No. 562 of 2012 () -------------------------- OP NO.1267/2012 of FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM AT ETTUMANOOR PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER: ------------------------ LAILAMMA, AGED 3 YRS. D/O.SUNNY, VELIYIL HOUSE, KATTOOR P.O. MARARIKKULAM VILLAGE, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMANATHAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------- BABU THOMAS, AGED 4 YRS. S/O.THOMAS, NILATHUMUKKIL HOUSE VAZHAPPALLY EAST VILLAGE, CHANGANACHERRY TALUK ALAPPUZHA DIST.- 686101 THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-01-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: TR.P(C)NO.562/2012 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE-A1 TRUE COPY OF THE OP.1267/2012 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM ANNEXURE-A2 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN OP.1267/2012 BEFORE THE FAMily COURT, KOTTAYAM AT ETTUMANOOR ANNEXURE-A3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL PETITION NO.1353/2012 PENDING BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, ALAPPUZHA RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S.TO JUDGE THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.
-------------------------------------- Tr.P.(C). No.562 of 2012 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of January, 2013. ORDER The respondent is served but, there is no response.
2. The petitioner-wife aged 37 years and stated to be residing at Kattur, near Cherthala seeks transfer of O.P.No.1267 of 2012 from the Family Court, Kottayam, at Ettumanoor to the Family Court, Alappuzha.
3. The petitioner states that she has filed O.P.No.1353 of 2012 in the Family Court, Alappuzha for return of the gold ornaments and that the said petition is pending decision. Moreover the travelling difficulties of the petitioner is also highlighted.
4. The petitioner is aged 37 years and she has to be accompanied by somebody to go to the Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor which involves expenses also.
5. The Supreme Court in Sumitha Singh v. Kumar Sanjay and another (AIR 200.SC
396) and Arti Rani v. Dharmendra Kumar Gupta [(2008) 9 SCC 353.has held that while considering the request for transfer of matrimonial proceedings convenience of the wife has to be looked into. Tr.P(C) No.562/201”
6. Having regard to the above and considering the fact that the one of the cases between the parties is pending in the Family Court, Alappuzha, I consider it appropriate that all the cases are tried and disposed of by the same court.
7. Having regard to the circumstances stated before me, I am also inclined to think that comparative hardship is more on the petitioner if request for transfer is not allowed. The inconvenience that may be caused to the respondent could be reduced by directing that he could appear in the Family Court, Alappuzha through counsel except when his physical presence is required. I am inclined to allow the request for transfer. Resultantly this petition is allowed as follows: (i) O.P.No.1267 of 2012 pending in the Family Court, Kottayam, at Ettumanoor is withdrawn from that court and made over to the Family Court, Alappuzha for trial and disposal. (ii) The transferor court while transmitting records of the case to the transferee court shall fix the date for appearance of the parties in the transferee court with due intimation to the counsel on both sides. (iii) The transferee court shall post the cases - O.P.No.1267 of 2012 (being transferred to that court) and O.P.No.1353 of 2012 (pending in that court), as far as possible on the same dates. Tr.P(C) No.562/2012 3 (iv) The respondent can appear in the transferee court through counsel except when his physical presence is required. I.A.No.3115 of 2012 will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks