IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Tr.P(C).No. 10 of 2009()
1. KAVITHA.S., AGED 32 YEARS
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SANTHOSHKUMAR T.K., AGED 38 YEARS
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.HARIDAS
For Respondent :SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :13/09/2010
O R D E R
THOMAS P JOSEPH, J.
----------------------------------------
Tr.P.C.No.10 of 2009
---------------------------------------
Dated this 13th day of September, 2010
ORDER
This petition is filed by the wife requesting transfer of
O.P.No.1754 fo 2008 of Family court, Ernakulam to Family Court,
Alappuzha. It is stated that petitioner is a resident of
Mavelikkara, working as a teacher in a U.P school at
Thiruvananthapuram and staying there in a hostel. She finds it
difficult to travel up to Ernakulam to contest the case. Moreover
she has filed O.P.No.243 of 2009 in Family Court, Alappuzha
claiming maintenance from respondent. Learned counsel for
petitioner requested that in the above circumstances the case
may be transferred to Family Court, Alappuzha. Learned counsel
for respondent opposes the application for transfer. It is
contended that petitioner who travels from her place of residence
to Thiruvananthapuram cannot have any difficulty to travel up to
Ernakulam.
2. The Supreme Court in Sumitha Singh Vs. Sanjay
Kumar & Another (AIR 2002 SC 396) and Arti Rani Lrs.
Pinki Devi and Another Vs. Darmendra Kumar Gupta (2008
(9) SCC 353) has stated that while considering request for
transfer in matrimonial proceedings convenience of the wife has
Tr.P.C.No.10 of 2009 : 2 :
to be looked into. O.P.No.1754 of 2008 is for a declaration that
marriage is null and void. O.P.No.243 of 2009 is for maintenance.
These cases are to be decided by the same court. Respondent has
not so far requested for transfer of O.P.No.243 of 2009 to Family
Court, Ernakulam. It is not disputed that Family Court at
Alappuzha is nearer to the place of residence of petitioner. She is
working at Thiruvananthapuram. She has to go to
Thiruvananthapuram occasionally (where she stays in a hostel)
does not mean that she has to travel a longer distance from her
place of residence to Ernakulam to contest the case. Having
regard to the circumstances stated, I am inclined to think that
comparative hardship is more on petitioner if transfer requested
for is not allowed than the hardship of respondent if transfer is
allowed. Hence I am inclined to allow the petition.
Resultantly this petition is allowed in the following lines:
(i) O.P.No.1754 of 2008 pending in
Family Court, Ernakulam is withdrawn from that
court and made over to Family Court, Alappuzha.
(ii) The transferor court shall transmit
records of the case to the transferee court with
due intimation to the counsel on both sides as to
the date of appearance in the transferee court.
(iii) Family Court, Alappuzha shall as far
as possible post all the cases on the same dates.
(THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE)
Sbna/-