Kerala High Court
Rajani K.V vs Sunil Kumar.P on 10 June, 2010
Author: Thomas P.Joseph
Bench: Thomas P.Joseph
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Tr.P(C).No. 138 of 2010()
1. RAJANI K.V., AGED 36,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SUNIL KUMAR.P., AGED 42 YEARS,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SMT.K.GIRIJA
For Respondent :SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :10/06/2010
O R D E R
THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.
====================================
Tr.P(C) No.138 of 2010
====================================
Dated this the 10th day of June, 2010
O R D E R
This petition is to transfer O.P No.1150 of 2009 from the file of Family Court, Alappuzha to the Family Court, Ernakulam. Petitioner/wife who is a resident of Ernakulam District filed O.P. No.1985 of 2009 for a declaration that she is the guardian of her minor child and O.P. No.1986 of 2009 for recovery of gold ornaments and money, both against respondent/husband in the Family Court, Ernakulam. While so respondent filed O.P. No.1150 of 2009 against petitioner in the Family Court, Alappuzha seeking restitution of conjugal rights. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that petitioner-wife is residing at Ernakulam and she has to travel a long distance to reach Alappuzha to conduct the cases. The cases are to be consolidated in the same court for disposal. Petitioner therefore requests that O.P. No.1150 of 2009 pending in the Family Court, Alappuzha be transferred to Family Court, Ernakulam. Learned counsel for respondent opposed the prayer and contended that respondent is a resident of Muhamma Tr.P(C) No.138 of 2010 -: 2 :- and that he has to travel a long distance to reach Ernakulam.
2. Muhamma is almost in equal distance from Alappuzha and Ernakulam, being situated almost towards middle of the two places. Therefore it is not as if, if the case pending in Family Court, Alappuzha is transferred to Family Court, Ernakulam respondent will be put to inconvenience as his learned counsel would urge. The Supreme Court in Sumitha Singh v. Kumar Samjay and Another (AIR 2002 SC 326) has stated that while considering request for transfer of cases in matrimonial proceedings convenience of wife has to be considered. Though that does not mean that inconvenience of husband should not be looked into, on the facts of this case I am not persuaded to think that transfer of the case from Family Court, Alappuzha to Family Court, Ernakulam would cause inconvenience to the respondent-husband or that the inconvenience he may put to when compared to the inconvenience petitioner has to suffer if she has to go to Alappuzha, is morde. Hence I am inclined to allow the request of petitioner.
Resultantly, this petition is allowed. O.P. No.1150 of 2009 pending in Family Court, Alappuzha is withdrawn from that court Tr.P(C) No.138 of 2010 -: 3 :- and made over to the Family Court, Ernakulam for disposal. The transferor court while transmitting records of the case to the transferee court shall fix date for appearance of the parties in the transferee court with intimation to counsel for both parties.
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE.
vsv