IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Tr.P(C).No. 273 of 2010()
1. HONEY,D/O.JOHN RAYMOND,RESIDING AT
... Petitioner
Vs
1. BONNIE MARWIN D'SILVA,AGED 38 YEARS,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.C.RAJENDRAN
For Respondent :SRI.NAVEEN THOMAS
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :18/10/2010
O R D E R
THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.
====================================
Tr.P(C) NO.273 of 2010
====================================
Dated this the 18th day of October, 2010
O R D E R
This petition is filed by the wife seeking transfer of O.P.
No.373 of 2010 from Family Court, Ernakulam to Family Court,
Kollam. That is a petition filed by the respondent for restitution of
conjugal rights. Petitioner who is a resident of Pallithottam, in
Kollam District filed O.P. No.883 of 2009 in Family Court, Kollam
against respondent for recovery of money, gold ornaments, etc.
She states that she is staying with her parents at Pallithottam, in
Kollam District along with her minor child. She finds it difficult to
travel to Family Court, Ernakulam. Moreover O.P. No.883 of 2009
is pending in Family Court, Kollam and if the cases continued in
two courts she has to attend both the courts. Hence she requested
for transfer of the case from Family Court, Ernakulam to Family
Court, Kollam.
2. Petition is opposed by respondent. It is stated that
petitioner is working as a Teacher at Chalakkudy, in Thrissur
District staying in a hostel at Chalakkudy. Hence it is not difficult
for petitioner to attend Family Court, Ernakulam which is midway
Tr.P(C) No.273 of 2010
-: 2 :-
from her place of residence to place of employment. According to
the learned counsel convenience of petitioner was also taken into
account while filing O.P. No.373 of 2010 in 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. That
of course does not mean that inconvenience of the husband has
to be ignored. It is not disputed that petitioner is working as
Teacher in a private school at Chalakkudy. Leaned counsel states
that petitioner cannot attend the courts every now and then since
the school being a private school, she has to attend the school
on Saturdays as well. It is stated that if the cases are tried in
two courts she has to take leave for two days. It is true that in
connection with the job petitioner has to go to Chalakkudy. I must
note that she is staying in a hostel at Chalakkudy. Going to the
school where she is working is different from going to the court.
There, petitioner has to face the estranged husband and
probably, his relatives also. In such a situation a young lady like
Tr.P(C) No.273 of 2010
-: 3 :-
petitioner requires assistance from her relatives who may have to
accompany her. In the circumstances mere fact that petitioner is
working in Chalakkudy is no reason to reject prayer for transfer of
the case to Family Court, Kollam. Respondent has a contention
that he has already filed objection in O.P. No.883 of 2009 in
Family Court, Kollam and it is not necessary for him to appear in
that court every now and then. Convenience of both parties
require that the cases are consolidated in the same court.
Inconvenience if any of respondent can be reduced to some
extent by directing that he need appear only when his physical
presence is required. Hence I am inclined to allow this petition.
Resultantly, this petition is allowed in the following lines:
(i) O.P.No.373 of 2010 pending in Family
Court, Ernakulam is withdrawn from that court and
made over to Family Court, Kollam.
(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
Tr.P(C) No.273 of 2010
-: 4 :-
sides.
(iii) Family Court, Kollam shall ensure that
O.P. No.373 of 2010 (transferred to it) and O.P.
No.883 of 2009 (pending in that court) are posted as
far as possible on the same dates.
(iv) It is made clear that except when
physical presence of respondent in the transferee
court is necessary he can appear through counsel.
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE.
vsv