IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Tr.P(C).No. 346 of 2009()
1. NEEBA, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.NEELAKANDAN,
... Petitioner
2. YADUKRISHNA (MINOR),S/O.UNNIKRISHNAN.K.K
3. NEERAJ (MINOR),S/O.UNNIKRISHNAN.K.K.
Vs
1. UNNIKRISHNAN K.K.,S/O.KARTHIKEYAN K.M.
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :15/09/2010
O R D E R
THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.
====================================
Tr.P(C) No.346 of 2009
====================================
Dated this the 15th day of September, 2010
O R D E R
Respondent is served on the petition but he has not
responded.
2. This petition is filed by wife and children seeking
transfer of O.P. No.193 of 2009 from Family Court, Kasargod to
Family Court, Ernakulam. It is stated that petitioner No.1 and her
minor children are staying with the aged parents of petitioner No.1
at Paravur Village, Ernakulam District, far away from Kasargod.
She has filed M.C.No.195 of 2009 seeking maintenance from the
respondent and O.P. No.1024 of 2009 for return of money and for
other reliefs, also against the respondent in Family Court,
Ernakulam and those cases are pending. Petitioners request that
the case pending in Family Court, Kasargod 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
Tr.P(c) No.346 of 2009
-: 2 :-
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 seen that two cases filed by petitioner No.1 are
pending in Family Court, Ernakulam. Respondent has to come to
Ernakulam to contest those cases. Till now there is no request
for transfer of those cases made by the respondent. Petitioners
are residing in Paravur which is far away from Kasargod.
Petitioner No.1, the wife has to travel a very long distance to
Kasargod. She is aged 29 years. She may have to be
accompanied by some relative which involves huge expenses.
She has also to look after her minor children. The hardship that
petitioner No.1 has to suffer if the request is not allowed
outweighs the hardship that may be caused to the respondent if
transfer of the case is allowed. Hence I am inclined to allow this
petition.
Resultantly, this petition is allowed in the following lines:
(i) O.P. No.193 of 2009 pending in Family
Court, Kasargod is withdrawn from that court and
made over to Family Court, Ernakulam.
Tr.P(c) No.346 of 2009
-: 3 :-
(ii) The transferor court while transmitting
records of the case to the transferee court shall fix
date for appearance of parties in the transferee
court with due intimation to the counsel for both
parties.
(iii) The transferee court shall ensure that all
the cases are posted on the same dates, as far as
possible.
(iv) It is made clear that except when
physical presence of the respondent in court is
necessary he can appear through counsel.
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE.
vsv