IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 17TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 26TH BHADRA 1932 TR.P(C).NO. 258 OF 2010() ------------------------------------- OP.339/2010 OF FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM .................... PETITIONER: -------------------- RAJNI ROSE JAMES, AGED 32 YEARS, D/O.JAMES, ALAPPATTU HOUSE, OLD THIRUMALA, MULLAKKAL, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR SMT.BHAVANA VELAYUDHAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- MATHEWS K SEBASTIAN, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.SEBASTIAN, KADAMATHODU SHALOM VILLA, CHETHIPUZHA, KURISUMMOODU, CHANGANACHERRY. THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Tr.P(C) No.258 of 2010 ==================================== Dated this the 17th day of September, 2010 O R D E R Though respondent was served he has not appeared. 2. This petition for transfer of O.P. No.339 of 2008 from Family Court, Kottayam, at Ettumanoor to Family Court, Alappuzha is filed by the wife aged about 32 years. It is stated that she is a resident of Alappuzha staying with her two year old child along and aged parents. She has already filed M.C.No.41 of 2010 seeking maintenance from the husband. She states that she has to travel a long distance from her place of residence to Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor to contest the case. Learned counsel requests that petition may be allowed. 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. That of course does not mean that inconvenience of the husband has to be ignored. Petitioner along with her minor child aged 2 years is Tr.P(C) No.258 of 2010 -: 2 :- residing at Alappuzha. Case filed by petitioner seeking maintenance is pending in the Family Court, at that place. Respondent has not so far requested for transfer of that case to Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor. Respondent is a resident of Chethipuzha in Chenganacherry and hence traveling distance to Ettumanoor and Alappuzha so far as respondent is concerned, is almost the same. Hence transfer of the case requested by petitioner will not cause inconvenience to the respondent. On the other hand it will be helpful to petitioner since she is a resident of Alappuzha. Hence I am inclined to allow the request for transfer. Resultantly, Petition is allowed in the following lines: (i) O.P. No.339 of 2010 pending in Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor is withdrawn from that court and made over to Family Court, Alappuzha. (ii) The transferor court while transmitting records of the case to the transferee court shall fix date for appearance of parties in the transferee court with due intimation to the counsel for both Tr.P(C) No.258 of 2010 -: 3 :- parties. (iii) The transferee court shall ensure that O.P. No.339 of 2010 and M.C. No.41 of 2010 are posted on the same dates, as far as possible. (iv) It is made clear that except when physical presence of respondent in court is necessary he can appear through counsel. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv