IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Tr.P(C).No. 277 of 2010()
1. ASA K.A., D/O. HARIDASAN KIDAV,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. LATHEESH, S/O. BALAN,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.V.V.SURESH
For Respondent :SMT.M.LISHA
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :13/10/2010
O R D E R
THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.
====================================
Tr.P(C) No.277 of 2010
====================================
Dated this the 13th day of October, 2010
O R D E R
Respondent is served on this petition but there is no
response.
2. This petition is filed by the wife seeking transfer of
O.P. No.668 of 2010 from Family Court, Kozhikode to Family
Court, Ernakulam. According to the petitioner she was seduced by
the respondent and compelled to enter into a register marriage.
She happened to do so under threat from the respondent.
Petitioner is a resident of Kozhikode and was working there in a
private company. On account of threat from the respondent and
others she got a transfer to Ernakulam and is now working in a
private company at Ernakulam and staying in a hostel at
Ernakulam. Respondent filed O.P. No.668 of 2010 in Family Court,
Kozhikode seeking restitution of conjugal rights. Petitioner has
filed O.P No.990 of 2010 in Family Court Ernakulam seeking
divorce. Petitioner states that there is nobody to accompany her
to go to Kozhikode. She has much difficulty to contest the case at
Kozhikode also considering the distance between her place of
Tr.P(C) No.277 of 2010
-: 2 :-
stay/work and Kozhikode. In the circumstances petitioner
requested for transfer.
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. That
of course does not mean that inconvenience if any of the
husband has to be ignored. It is not disputed that O.P. No.990 of
2010 filed by petitioner is pending consideration in Family Court,
Ernakulam. That is a petition filed for divorce. Respondent has
not so far requested for transfer of that case to Family Court,
Kozhikode for any reason whatsoever. It is stated by petitioner
that she finds it difficult to travel all the distance from her place of
stay/work to Kozhikode to contest the case. In the nature of the
reliefs claimed it is necessary that both the cases are tried and
disposed of by the same court. Having regard to these facts and
considering the comparative hardship of petitioner I am
persuaded to think that hardship of the wife if the case is not
transferred to Family Court, Ernakulam outweighs the
inconvenience that may be caused to the husband if case is
Tr.P(C) No.277 of 2010
-: 3 :-
transferred to Family Court, Ernakulam. Hence I am inclined
to allow the request of petitioner.
Resultantly, the petition is allowed in the following lines:
(i) O.P No.668 of 2010 pending in Family
Court, Kozhikode is withdrawn from that court and
made over to Family Court, Ernakulam.
(ii) 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.
(iii) Family Court, Ernakulam shall ensure
that O.P.No.668 of 2010 (being transferred to it) and
O.P. No.990 of 2010 pending in that court are
posted as far as possible on the same dates.
Tr.P(C) No.277 of 2010
-: 4 :-
(iv) It is made clear that except when
physical presence of the respondent in the transferee
court is necessary he can appear through counsel.
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE.
vsv