IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 8TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 17TH KARTHIKA 1932 Tr.P(C).No. 238 of 2010() ------------------------- OP.673/2010 of FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM .................... PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: -------------------- REETHA ALIAS VEENA, AGED 33 YEARS, D/O.JOSEPH, CHERUVALLIKKATTU HOUSE, MUTTOM, CHERTHALA P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.A.BALAGOPALAN SRI.A.RAJAGOPALAN SRI.M.S.IMTHIYAZ AHAMMED SRI.K.SANEESH KUMAR RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: --------------- MATHEW ALIAS SHAJI, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.ANTONY, KOZHUPPIL HOUSE, MUNDUVELIPADY BHAGOM, ATHIRAMPUZHA VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, NOW RESIDING AT AAVIMOOTHIL HOUSE, RAMAPURAM BAZAR P.O., RAMAPURAM-688135 ADV. SRI.TOM JOSE (PADINJAREKARA) FOR R1 THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- Tr.P(C).No.238 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 08th day of November, 2010 ORDER This petition is filed by the wife seeking transfer of O.P (Divorce).No.673 of 2010 from Family Court, Kottayam, at Ettumanoor to Family Court, Ernakulam. That is a petition filed by the respondent for dissolution of marriage. Petitioner states that she is a resident of Muttom, in Cherthala Taluk, Alappuzha District. She has to travel long distance. She is dependant on her aged parents. She has also a minor child to look after. 2. Petition is opposed by the respondent. It is stated that there is no valid ground to transfer the case to Ernakulam and that if petitioner's residence is at Muttom, she should have asked for transfer to Family Court, Alappuzha. Learned counsel on both sides argued in favour and against the transfer. 3. It is not disputed that petitioner is now staying at Muttom, in Alappuzha District and the request for transfer of the case is to Ernakulam and not to Alappuzha. Regarding that, her explanation is that her sister is staying at Palarivattom, Ernakulam (though not pleaded in the petition) and hence it is convenient for her to go to Family Court, Ernakulam. Since her Tr..P(C).No.238 of 2010 : 2 : parents are aged they are not able to accompany her to Family Court at Ettumanoor or at Alappuzha. 4. So far as respondent is concerned, though he is a resident of Athirampuzha Village, in Kottayam district he is working abroad. Normally he may be represented by his power of attorney. Learned counsel states that respondent is now staying at Ramapuram. If he is staying at Ramapuram distance from that place to Ettumanoor and Ernakulam is almost the same. 5. 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) stated that while considering request for transfer in matrimonial proceeding convenience of the wife has to be looked into. It is true that in the petition it is not stated that petitioner's sister is residing at Palarivattom, Ernakulam but fact remained that request made is for transfer of the case to Ernakulam. I do not find reason to disbelieve the statement of petitioner. Transfer of the case to Ernakulam will not cause much inconvenience to the respondent since as I stated he is residing at Ramapuram and distance from that place to Ettumanoor and Ernakulam is almost the same. At any rate, having regard to the Tr..P(C).No.238 of 2010 : 3 : facts and circumstances of the case I am persuaded to think that comparative hardship is more on petitioner if request for transfer is not allowed than the inconvenience that may be caused to the husband. The hardship of respondent can be reduced by directing that he need appear in the transferee court only when his physical presence is essential. Resultantly this petition is allowed in the following lines: (i) O.P.No.673 of 2010 pending in Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor is withdrawn from that court and made over to Family Court, Ernakulam. (ii) The transferor court shall transmit records of the case to the transferee court with due intimation to counsel on both sides as to the date of appearance in transferee court. (iii) It is made clear that except when his personal presence is required, respondent can appear in the transferee court through counsel. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-