REMYA M K Vs. VEETTU E

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is filed by the divorced wife aged about 24 years for transfer of O.P. No.848 of 2010from Family Court, Kozhikode to Family Court, Ernakulam. That is a petition filed the former husband for damages which according to the learned counsel for petitioner takes in value of gold ornaments allegedly given by the former husband to petitioner while they were living together as husband and wife. Petitioner though a resident of Naduvannur in Kozhikode District, claimed to be working in a Call Centre at Ernakulam and is residing in Ernakulam in connection with that employment. She has already filed O.P. No.1779 of 2010 for return of gold ornaments and M.C. No.275 of 2010 claiming maintenance from her former husband, both in Family Court, Ernakulam. Petitioner states that since she is residing at Ernakulam in connection with her employment is unable to travel all the distance from Ernakulam to Family Court, Kozhikode to contest the case pending in that court. Petition is opposed by the respondent on various grounds. It is contended by respondent that petitioner is staying with a person with whom she had a previous marriage and that her permanent residence is at Naduvannur in Kozhikode District and since O.P. No.848 of 2010 is being one for damages presence of petitioner at the every now and then in Family Court, Kozhikode is not required. It is also contended that since respondent is working Abroad he is represented by his father who also finds it difficult to travel all the distance from Kozhikode to Family Court, Ernakulam to contest the case. In the circumstances request for transfer is resisted. According to the petitioner in O.P. No.848 of 2010 there is a claim for damages which includes value of gold ornaments allegedly given to the petitioner during the period they were living together. In O.P. No.1779 of 2010 filed by the petitioner in Family Court, Ernakulam prayer is for return of gold ornaments. There appears to be some common factor between the claims in the two cases. Even otherwise two cases filed by petitioner are pending in Family Court, Ernakulam and those cases are being contested by the respondent. Till now there is no request for transfer of those cases to Family Court, Kozhikode by the respondent on account of any inconvenience or difficulty of Power of Attorney holder of the respondent. The mere fact that petitioner is a permanent resident of Naduvannur in Kozhikode District is not by itself a ground to reject the request for transfer since it is not disputed that she is now working in a Call Centre at Ernakulam. 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. That principle must apply in the case of divorced wife also. Petitioner is aged about 24 years and if O.P. No.848 of 2010 continues to be pending in Family Court,she had to travel a long distance. Moreover it is also convenient for all the parties if cases are tried and disposed of by the same court. In these circumstances I am inclined to think that the request of petitioner is to be allowed also taking into account the weight of comparative hardship of petitioner. Resultantly, petition is allowed in the following lines: