LAWS(KER)-2010-9-167

NEEBA Vs. UNNIKRISHNAN K K

Decided On September 15, 2010
NEEBA Appellant
V/S
UNNIKRISHNAN K.K. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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 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: