IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2010 / 4TH ASHADHA 1932 Tr.P(C).No. 53 of 2010() ------------------------ OP.741/2009 of FAMILY COURT,KOLLAM .................... PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3: ------------------------------ 1. K.K.RAMACHANDRAN PADOORKUNNATH VEETTIL, ALATHUR TALUK PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. PAVIZHAM, W/O.K.K.RAMACHANDRAN DO..DO... BY ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH SRI.V.C.MADHAVANKUTTY RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND 1st RESPONDENT: --------------- 1. BONY B RAJ D/O.BABURAJAN, THAMBURU, THEKKEVILA, MUNDAKKAL VILLAGE,KOLLAM TALUK. 2. K.R.SHIJITH, S/O.K.K.RAMACHANDRAN PADOORKUNNATH VEETTIL, ALATHUR TALUK PALAKKAD DISTRICT. ADV. SRI. K.SHAJ FOR R1 SRI.SAJJU.S FOR R1 THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- Tr.P.C.No. 53 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 25th day of June, 2010 ORDER Notice to respondent No.2 is dispensed with in view of the order I propose to pass in this transfer petition. Parents-in-law of respondent No.1 seeks transfer of the case the latter filed in Family Court, Kollam to Family Court, Palakkad. Respondent No.1 filed that petition against petitioners and her husband, respondent No.2 seeking return of gold ornaments and other reliefs. Petitioners say that they are aged 72 and 69 years respectively residing in Alathur Taluk in Palakkad district and finds it difficult to travel up to Kollam to contest the case. They also have a case that even the allegations in the petition do not implicate them and they are unnecessarily made parties to the litigation. The application is opposed by learned counsel for respondent No.1. 2. While considering the petition for transfer of matrimonial proceedings the Supreme Court has stated Sumithra Singh Vs. Kumar Sanjay & Another (AIR 2002 SC 396) that convenience of the wife has to be considered. Learned counsel for petitioners contend that in that case parents-in-law of the lady were not involved. Even then, that does not mean that Tr.P.C.No.53 of 2010 : 2 : inconvenience of the wife shall not be looked into. Of course inconvenience of the husband or parents-in-law are not to be totally ignored. In this case respondent No.1 is a young lady aged about 28 years residing at Thekkevila in Kollam Taluk. If the case is transferred to Family Court, Palakkad she has to travel a lot. Transfer of the case to Palakkad will certainly result in much inconvenience to respondent No.1. The mere fact that petitioners are aged 72 and 69 years alone is not a ground to put respondent No.1, the young lady to such inconvenience. After all it is possible for petitioners to engage a power of attorney on their behalf to conduct the case if such a course is fond necessary. I also make it clear that unless presence of petitioners is absolutely necessary such as for recording evidence or other purposes, it is open to the petitioners to seek exemption from appearance in court and appear through their counsel if any. 3. Learned counsel made a request that if transfer of the case to Family Court, Palakkad is not possible the case may be transferred to Family Court, Thrissur. That does not in anyway lessen the inconvenience of respondent No.1/wife as she has then also to travel from her place of residence in an interior part of Tr.P.C.No.53 of 2010 : 3 : Kollam Taluk to Thrissur. Having considered the matter I am not inclined to allow the request of petitioners. Resultantly this petition fails. It is dismissed. I make it clear that it will be open to the petitioners to seek exemption from personal appearance in the court concerned unless their physical presence is necessary. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-