1 TRPC 404/23 2025:KER:28188 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI THURSDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 6TH CHAITHRA, 1947 TR.P(C) NO. 404 OF 2023 TO TRANSFER OP NO.76 OF 2023 OF FAMILY COURT, KALPETTA PETITIONER/S: HASNAH YASMIN ISMAIL, AGED 31 YEARS D/O. ISMAIL KALLUNKAL, SAFA HOUSE, THAZATHANGADI, AREACODE P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT., PIN - 673639 BY ADVS. R.RANJITH (MANJERI) A.P.NIDHIN KUMAR RESPONDENT/S: SHINOS BRAN AGED 34 YEARS S/O. MOIDU BRAN, AGED 34 YEARS, BRAN HOUSE, PANDIKKADAVU, MANATHAVADY, WAYANAD DISTRICT., PIN - 670645 THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 TRPC 404/23 2025:KER:28188 ORDER (Dated this the 27th day of March 2025) The parties are husband and wife. The petitioner seeks the transfer of O.P. No.76 of 2023 on the files of Family Court, Kalpetta to the Family Court, Malappuram. 2. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 18.04.2015, as per the Muslim rites and rituals and started living as husband and wife. Because of cruelty and harassment from the side of the respondent, the petitioner discontinued the marital relationship. Khula was pronounced in between the parties and the marriage was dissolved. The present O.P. is filed by the respondent seeking restitution of conjugal rights against the petitioner. 3. The petitioner is presently residing at Areacode in Malappuram district and she finds it very difficult 3 TRPC 404/23 2025:KER:28188 to reach at Family Court, Kalpetta to attend the case, as it is far away from her residence. Hence, she seeks a transfer. 4. Though service is complete, none appears for the respondent. 5. The law in respect of transfer of proceedings, particularly in matrimonial disputes, is no longer res-integra, in view of the categoric declaration of law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sumitha Singh v. Kumar Sanjay and another [(2001)10 SCC 41)], Mona Aresh Goel v. Aresh Satya Goel [(2000) 9 SCC 255], Vaishali Shridhar Jagtap v. Shridhar Vishwanath Jagtap [AIR 2016 SC 3584] and Santhini v. Vijaya Venkatesh [2017 (4) KLT 415 (SC)]; wherein it is held that, it is the convenience of the woman and children that have to be looked into while ordering the transfer of a case from one Court to another. The law is quite categoric, and the wife's convenience has to be looked into while deciding 4 TRPC 404/23 2025:KER:28188 a petition for transfer, and in such cases, a transfer has been effected. Thus, in the light of the uncontroverted averments in the memorandum of transfer petition as well as the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the afore-cited decisions, I am inclined to allow this transfer petition. In the result, this Tr.P.C. is allowed, withdrawing O.P. No.76 of 2023 pending before the Family Court, Kalpetta, and transferring it to the Family Court, Malappuram. The Family Court, Kalpetta, shall transfer the records to the Family Court, Malappuram, immediately and the Family Court, Malappuram shall, upon receipt of the records, issue notice for appearance of the parties and dispose of the case in accordance with law. Sd/- BASANT BALAJI JUDGE dl/ 5 TRPC 404/23 2025:KER:28188 APPENDIX OF TR.P(C) 404/2023 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL PETITION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, KALPETTA AS O.P.NO.76/2023 DATED 13- 02-2023