Bushara vs Abdul Rasheed

Thomas P. Joseph, J.—This petition is for transfer of O.P. No. 826 of 2011 from the Family Court, Thrissur to the Family Court, Malappuram. Petitioner states that she is aged about 28 years, residing at Tirurkad, near Perinthalmanna, in Malappuram District and has to travel a long distance to Thrissur to contest the case.

Learned counsel submits that petitioner had filed M.C. No. 494 of 2011 in the Family Court, Malappuram where an ex-parte order was passed and which the respondent is now attempting to set aside by filing an application for that purpose.

Whether the order is set aside or not, M.C. No. 494 of 2011 is on the file of the Family Court, Malappuram. Petitioner is a young lady and has to travel a long distance to Thrissur to contest the case. Respondent has to go to the Family Court, Malappuram in connection with M.C. No. 494 of 2011.

The Supreme Court, in Sumita Singh Vs. Kumar Sanjay and Another, and Arti Rani @ Pinki Devi and Another Vs. Dharmendra Kumar Gupta, has held that while considering request for transfer of matrimonial proceeding, convenience of the wife has to be looked into. That of course does not mean that inconvenience of the husband has to be ignored. Comparative hardship is more on petitioner if the request for transfer is not allowed. Inconvenience of the respondent can be reduced by directing that he need appear in the transferee court only when his physical presence is required.

Resultantly this petition is allowed as under:

(1) O.P. No. 826 of 2011 is withdrawn from the Family Court, Thrissur and made over to the Family Court, Malappuram for trial and disposal.

(2) 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 on both sides.

(3) The transferee court shall ensure that O.P. No. 826 of 2011 (being transferred to it) and M.C. No. 494 of 2011 pending before it are posted as far as possible on the same dates.

(4) It is made clear that except when physical presence of the respondent in the transferee court is necessary, he can appear through counsel.

All pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed.