IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Tr.P(C).No. 45 of 2010()
1. AJEESHA AKBAR P.A., D/O. P.A.AKBAR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. NAJEEBUDHEEN,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.BASANT BALAJI
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :05/08/2010
O R D E R
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.
--------------------------------------
Tr.P.(C) No.45 of 2010
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 5th day of August, 2010.
ORDER
Since notice to respondent was returned with the endorsement that
“addressee left” this Court directed that notice on the respondent be served on
the counsel appearing for him in the court below. Accordingly, notice is served
on the counsel and counsel for petitioner has filed a memo to that effect.
Service of notice on counsel since the main proceeding is pending in the court
below is sufficient as per Rule 59 of the Rules of the High Court of Kerala, 1971.
Hence there is sufficient service on respondent.
2. This petition is filed by the wife seeking transfer of O.P. No.1197
of 2009 from Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram to Family Court, Ernakulam.
That is a petition filed by the respondent/husband for restitution of conjugal
rights. In the meantime petitioner/wife filed M.C.No.372 of 2009 seeking
maintenance and O.P.No.2015 of 2009 for dissolution of marriage against
respondent in Family Court, Ernakulam. Those proceedings are pending in the
latter court. It is stated that petitioner is a resident of Kochi and she has to travel
a long distance from her place of residence to Thiruvananthapuram to contest
the case pending in Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. It is also stated that
since two cases are pending in Family Court, Ernakulam it is necessary that all
the cases are consolidated in the same court and tried and disposed of together.
Tr.P.(C) No.45/2010
2
Learned counsel requested that in the circumstances O.P.No.1197 of 2009
may be transferred to Family Court, Ernakulam.
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. Petitioner/wife is staying at Kochi and if the case is continued at
Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram, she has to travel a long distance. She may
have to be accompanied by some relatives which involves huge expenses.
Moreover two cases are pending in Family Court, Ernakulam. It is necessary
that all the cases are consolidated in the same court for proper decision of the
case. Considering the circumstances stated by learned counsel and also
the fact that two proceedings initiated by petitioner/wife are pending in Family
Court, Ernakulam I am inclined to allow this petition.
Resultantly this petition is allowed in the following lines:
i. O.P. No.1197 of 2009 pending in Family Court,
Thiruvananthapuram is withdrawn from that court and made over to Family
Court, Ernakulam for trial and disposal.
Tr.P.(C) No.45/2010
3
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.
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.
THOMAS P.JOSEPH,
Judge.
cks