IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 14TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 23RD BHADRA 1932 Tr.P(C).No. 240 of 2010() ------------------------- OP.964/2010 of FAMILY COURT,ERNAKULAM MC.110/2010 of J.M.F.C.-II,TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: -------------------- MERCY GEORGE AGED 54 YEARS, W/o. T V GEORGE MAVELIL HOUSE, T C 13/2195-5 PRABHA LANE, MULAVANA VANCHIYOOR (P.O) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695035 BY ADV. SMT.MAJIDA.S SRI.K.RAJESH KANNAN RESPONDENT: --------------- Dr. T V GEORGE AGED 57 YEARS, S/o T G VARGHESE P H A HEERA TWINS PATTOM P O THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 825 ADV. SRI.SUBAL J.PAUL SMT.SHEEBA SUBAL THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- Tr.P.C.No.240 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 14th day of September, 2010 ORDER This petition is for transfer of O.P.No.964 of 2010 (wrongly stated in the petition as O.P.No.946 of 2010) of Family Court, Ernakulam to Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. That is a petition filed by the respondent/husband for restitution of conjugal rights. Petitioner, on her part has filed M.C.No.110 of 2010 in the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Thiruvananthapuram against respondent seeking maintenance. It is stated that petitioner is a resident of Vanchiyoor in Thiruvananthapuram District while as per respondent's address shown in the petition he is a resident of Thiruvananthapuram but learned counsel for respondent states that he is now staying at Ernakulam in connection with employment. Petitioner states that she has to travel a long distance from Thiruvananthapuram to contest the case at Ernakulam and hence request for transfer. 2. The Supreme Court in Sumitha Singh Vs. Sanjay Kumar & Another (AIR 2002 SC 396) and Arti Rani Lrs. Pinki Devi and Another Vs. Darmendra Kumar Gupta (2008 (9) SCC 353) has stated that while considering request for Tr.P.C.No.240 of 2010 : 2 : transfer in matrimonial proceedings convenience of the wife has to be looked into. True that does not mean that any inconvenience of the husband has to be ignored. It is not disputed that petitioner resides at Vanchiyoor, in Thiruvananthapuram District. She has to travel long distance to contest the case at Ernakulam. In connection with M.C.No.110 of 2010 filed in in the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Thiruvananthapuram respondent has to appear in that court. Having regard to the facts and circumstances I am inclined to think that comparative hardship is more on petitioner if the transfer requested for is not allowed than the hardship respondent may suffer in case transfer is allowed. In the circumstance, I am inclined to allow the petition. Resultantly this petition is allowed in the following lines: (i) O.P.No.964 of 2010 pending in Family Court, Ernakulam is withdrawn from the court and made over to Family court, Thiruvananthapuram. (ii) The transferor court shall transmit records of the case to the transferee court with due intimation to the counsel on both sides as to the date of appearance in the transferee court. Tr.P.C.No.240 of 2010 : 3 : (iii) It is made clear that except when physical presence of respondent is necessary, he can appear in the transferee court through counsel. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/- True Copy P.A to Judge