Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY 2013 1ST MAGHA 193 TR.P(C).NO. 162 OF 201.() ------------------------------------- O.P. NO.36 OF 2012.FAMILY COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- SANDHYA.P.S. DAUGHTER OF SEKHARAN P.P,ROOM NO.B-3 AMRITHA KRIPA PROJECT FINANCE DEPARTMENT AMRITHA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES,PONEKKARA P.O KOCHI 68 041. BY ADVS.SRI.BOBY MATHEW SMT.K.MEERA RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. RASHEED, AGED 2 YEARS SON OF SAIDU,THATTUPARAMBIL HOUSE,MATHIRAPILLY KARA KOTHAMANGALAM VILLAGE,KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK.
2. BENNET, AGED 2 YEARS SON OF BINOY,KALAPPURACKAL HOUSE C/O.ABRAHAM PARANAYIL,THRIKKARIYOOR P.O THRIKKARIYOOR,KOTHAMANGALAM. BY ADVOCATES M/S.M.B.SANDEEP M.M.ALIYAR, R.PRIYA BIJU GEORGE (VADASSERY) R1 THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21-01-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: TR.P(C)NO.162 OF 201.APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF O.P. NO.36 OF 201.PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE FAMILY COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA. ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE SUMMONS DATED 3 3.2012 SERVED ON THE PETITIONER IN ANNEXURE-A1 PETITION. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL TRUE COPY THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.
==================================== Tr.P(C) No.162 of 2012 ==================================== Dated this the 21st day of January, 2013 ORDER
This petition is filed by the wife seeking transfer of O.P. No.36 of 2012 from the Family Court, Muvattupuzha to the Family Court, Ernakulam on the ground of inconvenience to travel the long distance to Muvattupuzha.
2. O.P. No.36 of 2012 is filed by the 1st respondent for divorce. The 2nd respondent is also a party in that proceeding. Though he is served, he has not appeared in this proceeding.
3. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent submitted that the Family Court, Ernakulam has no jurisdiction to try and dispose of the case.
4. The objection to the jurisdiction learned counsel for the 1st respondent has raised is concerning initiation of the proceeding. When the case is transferred to the Family Court, Ernakulam by virtue of the transfer, that court gets jurisdiction.
5. Petitioner aged 25 years is staying at Ponekkara, in Ernakulam. She has to travel a long distance to Muvattupuzha from Ernakulam to contest the case. Tr.P(C) No.162 of 2012 -:
2. :- 6. 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 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.
7. Having regard to the various factors I am of the view that comparative hardship is more on the petitioner in case request for transfer is not allowed. The inconvenience that may be caused to the respondents can be reduced by permitting them to appear in the transferee court through counsel except when their physical presence is required. Hence I am inclined to allow the petition. Resultantly, the Petition is allowed in the following lines: (a) O.P. No.36 of 2012 pending in the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram is withdrawn from that court and made over to the Family Court, Ernakulam for trial and disposal. (b) The transferor court while transmitting Tr.P(C) No.162 of 2012 -:
3. :- records of the cases 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. (c) It is made clear that except when the physical presence of the respondents in the transferee court is necessary, they can appear through counsel. All pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv