- (1.) The petitioner has approached this Court seeking for transfer of O.P.(HMA) No.580 of 2015 filed for dissolution of marriage of the respondent and petitioner and O.P. No.1282 of 2012 filed for custody of minor child, from the Court of Family Court, Alappuzha, Kerala to Family Court, Chennai, Tamil Nadu.
(2.) When the matter came up for consideration before this Court, learned counsel appearing for the respondent brought to our notice a decision rendered by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Krishna Veni Nagam v. Harish Nagam, 2017(2) R.C.R.(Civil) 358 : 2017(2) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 373 : (2017) 4 SCC 150 and requested that there is no need to transfer the cases; instead parties can be directed to avail the facility of video conferencing, as suggested by this Court in the case referred to above.
(3.) In Krishna Veni Nagam (supra) a coordinate Bench of this Court went into the issue of preventing the backlog of transfer petitions before the Courts. It appears that the Court also had the assistance of an amicus. Having heard the learned Counsel on both the sides and learned amicus, the Court finally, at paragraph-18, issued the following directions:- "18. We, therefore, direct that in matrimonial or custody matters or in proceedings between parties to a marriage or arising out of disputes between parties to a marriage, wherever the defendants/respondents are located outside the jurisdiction of the court, the court where proceedings are instituted, may examine whether it is in the interest of justice to incorporate any safeguards for ensuring that summoning of defendant/respondent does not result in denial of justice. Order incorporating such safeguards may be sent along with the summons. The safeguards can be:- i) Availability of video conferencing facility. ii) Availability of legal aid service. iii) Deposit of cost for travel, lodging and boarding in terms of Order 25 CPC. iv) E-mail address/phone number, if any, at which litigant from out station may communicate." ;