IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 6TH DECEMBER 2011 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 Tr.P(C).No. 76 of 2011() ------------------------ OP.27/2011 of FAMILY COURT, KASARAGOD .................... PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------------- LOVELY, AGED 42 YEARS, D/O. THOMAS, PARAPPURATH HOUSE, VALLIPPARA KARAYIL, MUTTAM VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.JIMMY GEORGE SRI.M.JOSE ANTONY RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: ------------------------- JOSE KUTTY SEBASTIAN, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O. SEBASTIAN, SRATTEL HOUSE, KUZHINGAD, BALAL VILLAGE AND POST, HOSDURG TALUK. ADV. SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN FOR R1 SRI.DEEPU LAL MOHAN FOR R1 THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Tr.P(C).No. 76 of 2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: Annexure-A1 : COPY OF O.P.NO.27/2011 PENDING BEFORE THE HON'BLE FAMILY COURT, KASARAGOD Annexure-A2 : COPY OF the MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DTD 19.02.2011 ISSUED FROM THE AMRUTHA AYURVEDIC CLINIC & RESEARCH CENTRE RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /True Copy/ P.A to Judge THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- Tr.P(C).No.76 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 06th day of December, 2011 ORDER Petitioner/wife seeks transfer of O.P.No.27 of 2011 from the Family Court, Kasaragod to the Family Court, Thodupuzha where O.P(Div).No.398 of 2010 filed by her for divorce is pending. It is stated that petitioner is aged 42 years, residing at Muttom Village, in Thodupuzha Taluk and that she has to travel long distance to Kasaragod to contest O.P.No.27 of 2011. 2. Petition is opposed by the respondent. It is contended that there is no sufficient reason for transfer of the case. ` 3. 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 transfer in matrimonial proceedings convenience of the wife has to be looked into. It is not disputed that O.P(Div).No.398 of 2010 filed by the petitioner is pending consideration before the Family Court, Thodupuzha. That petition being for divorce it is necessary that request of respondent in O.P.No.27 of 2011 for restitution of conjugal rights is considered by the Court which Tr.P(C).No.76 of 2011 -: 2 :- deals with O.P(Div).No.398 of 2010. Respondent has not prayed for transfer of O.P(Div).No.398 of 2010 from the Family Court, Thodupuzha. On considering comparative hardship, I am inclined to think that hardship is more on petitioner if request for transfer is not allowed. Hence I am inclined to allow the request. Resultantly this petition is allowed as follows: (i) O.P.No.27 of 2011 pending in the Family Court, Kasaragod is withdrawn from that court and made over to the Family Court, Thodupuzha. (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. (iii) It is made clear that except when physical presence of respondent is necessary it is open to him to appear through counsel in the transferee court. (iv) The Family Court, Thodupuzha is directed to post all the cases between petitioner and respondent pending in that Court and transferred to it as far as possible, on the same dates. (THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-