IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Tr.P(C).No. 194 of 2010()
1. SUDHA A.,D/O.NARAYANANKUTTY,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. PREMAKUMARAN, S/O.PADMANABHAN,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.M.R.VENUGOPAL
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :15/07/2010
O R D E R
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.
--------------------------------------
Tr.P.(C) No.194 of 2010
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 15th day of July, 2010.
ORDER
This petition is filed by the wife seeking transfer of O.P. No.332 of 2010
from Family Court, Palakkad to Family Court, Thrissur. That is a petition filed
by the respondent/husband for restitution of conjugal rights. Petitioner has
already filed O.P.No.230 of 2010 seeking divorce, O.P.No.488 of 2010 for return
of gold ornaments, etc. and M.C.No.154 of 2010 for maintenance against
respondent/husband in the Family Court, Thrissur and those cases are pending
in that court. Petitioner states that it is necessary that O.P.No.332 of 2010 is
tried along with the cases pending in Family Court, Thrissur. It is stated that
she is a resident of Pattiparambu, near Thrissur and has to travel a lot to
reach Family Court, Palakkad if O.P.No.332 of 2010 continued to be in that
court. In the circumstances she has requested for transfer. Respondent denies
various allegations made against him and states that there is no reason to
transfer O.P.No.332 of 2010 from Family Court, Palakkad .
2. 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. It is not disputed that petitioner is a resident of Pattiparambu
Tr.P.(C) No.194/2010
2
near Thrissur while respondent is staying at Olavakkode in Palakkad District. It
is unnecessary to go into correctness of the allegations made by petitioner in
this petition against respondent. What is required to be decided is only whether
it is convenient to transfer the case to Family Court, Thrissur. Admittedly three
cases involving the parties are pending in the Family Court, Thrissur. Petitioner
has to travel from her place of residence to Palakkad if the case continued at
that place. She may have to be accompanied by some relative. It involves
additional expense also for her. Respondent has to attend Family Court,
Thrissur to contest the cases pending against him in that court. Considering all
these aspects and also that transfer of the case to Thrissur will not cause that
much inconvenience to the respondent/husband, I am inclined to allow this
petition.
Resultantly this petition is allowed in the following lines:
i. O.P. No.332 of 2010 pending in Family Court, Palakkad is
withdrawn from that court and made over to Family Court, Thrissur.
ii. Family Court, Thrissur will ensure that all the cases between
petitioner and respondent are posted on the same dates, as far as possible.
Tr.P.(C) No.194/2010
3
iii. It is made clear that except when the physical presence of
respondent is required in the transferee court it is open to him to appear through
counsel.
iv. The transferor court shall, while transmitting records of the case to
the transferee court fix the date for appearance of parties in the transferee
court with due intimation to the counsel on both sides.
I.A.No.1653 of 2010 will stand dismissed.
THOMAS P.JOSEPH,
Judge.
cks