IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 29TH OCTOBER 2010 / 7TH KARTHIKA 1932 Tr.P(C).No. 309 of 2010() ------------------------- OP(DIV).583/2009 of FAMILY COURT, ALAPPUZHA .................... PETITIONER: ------------------------------- LITTLE FLOWER @ SHERLY, AGED 25 YEARS, D/O.PEYOOS, SHERLY HOUSE, PUTHUKURUCHI P.O., MARYANADU, KADINAMKULAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.ANIL SMT.R.RAMYA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- CARLETO WELSHINE, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.DAMIEN BONSHINE, THEKKE VEEDU, EZHUPUNNA SOUTH P.O., KODAMTHURUTHU VILLAGE, CHERTHALA TALUK, ALLEPPEY DISTRICT. THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Tr.P.(C) No.309 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of October, 2010. ORDER Respondent inspite of service of notice remained absent. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner. 2. Petitioner/wife has filed this petition seeking transfer of O.P.(Div.) No.583 of 2009 from Family Court, Alappuzha to Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. That is a petition filed by the respondent/husband. Petitioner states that she is aged about 25 years, residing in her paternal house at Kadinamkulam, in Thiruvananthapuram District and that there is no nobody to accompany her to Alappuzha to contest that case. Petitioner has filed M.C.No.109 of of 2010 in Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram claiming maintenance from the respondent. Respondent is aged about 32 years and residing at Kodamthuruthu, in Cherthala Taluk, Alappuzha District. 3. The Supreme Court in Sumitha Singh v. Kumar Sanjay and another (AIR 2002 SC 396) and Arti Rani v. Dharmendra Kumar Gupta [(2008) 9 SCC 353] has stated that while considering request for transfer of matrimonial proceedings convenience of the wife has to be looked into. True that does not mean that inconvenience if any of the husband need not be considered. Petitioner/wife is aged only 25 years and if the Tr.P.(C) No.309/2010 2 case continues at Family Court, Alappuzha she has to travel all the distance from her place of residence to Alappuzha which is more than 150 kms. She has to be accompanied by some close relative which involves huge expenses also. Moreover M.C.No.109 of 2010 filed by petitioner is pending in Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. In connection with that case respondent has to attend that court. Respondent has not so far sought transfer of M.C.No.109 of 2010 to Family Court, Alappuzha for any reason whatsoever. It is convenient to both sides that both the cases are tried and disposed of by the same court. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case I am inclined to think that comparative hardship is more on the petitioner/wife if the request for transfer is not allowed than the inconvenience that may be caused to the respondent/husband if the request is allowed. Considering the hardship of petitioner and the circumstances stated above, I am inclined to allow this petition. Resultantly this petition is allowed in the following lines: (i) O.P. (Div.) No.583 of 2009 pending in Family Court, Alappuzha is withdrawn from that court and made over to Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram for trial and disposal. (ii) The transferor court while transmitting records of the case to Tr.P.(C) No.309/2010 3 the transferee court shall fix the date for appearance of parties in the transferee court with due intimation to the counsel for both parties. (iii) The transferee court shall ensure that both the cases are posted on the same dates, as far as possible. (iv) It is made clear that except when physical presence of respondent in the transferee court is necessary he can appear through counsel. I.A.No.2481 of 2010 will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks