IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2011 / 28TH SRAVANA 1933 Tr.P(C).No. 263 of 2010() ----------------------------------- OP(GW).566/2010 of FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM .................... PETITONER/1ST RESPONDENT -------------------------------------------- CHUNDAKKAT MALAYIL SREEJA, AGED 38,D/O.SATYAVRATHAN NAIR, CHUNDAKKAT MALAYIL HOUSE, KURAVANKUZHIYIL P.O., PULLAT, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.P.PRADEEP RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER/2ND RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. DR.T.UNNIKRISHNAN, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.KUNJAPPAN (LATE), THACHARAKKAL HOUSE, NIRAMARUTHOOR P.O., TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. LEELAMANI AMMA, W/O.SATYAVRATHAN NAIR, CHUNDAKKAT MALAYIL HOUSE, KURAVANKUZHIYIL P.O., PULLAT, PATHNAMTHITTA DISTRICT. R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss TPC. NO.263/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES A:- COPY OF THE PET IN OP(GW) NO.566/2010 ON THE FILED OF FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES NIL:- TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE tss THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Tr.P(C) No.263 of 2010 ==================================== Dated this the 19th day of August, 2011 O R D E R This petition is for transfer of O.P(G&W) No.566 of 2010 from Family Court, Malappuram to Family Court, Thiruvalla. That is a petition filed by the respondent-husband for custody of the minor children aged 10 and 5 years, respectively. It is stated that petitioner aged 38 years is residing at Karuvaznkuzhiyil, in Pathanamthitta District and that the first respondent-husband aged 44 years is residing in Niramaruthuor, in Tirur Taluk. Learned counsel submits that first respondent has already divorced petitioner. Second respondent is the mother of first respondent. She is also arrayed as a party in O.P(G&W) No.566 of 2010. 2. 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. It is stated that since the case is pending in Family Tr.P(C) No.263 of 2010 -: 2 :- Court, Malappuram petitioner and second respondent have to travel all the distance with the minor children from Pathanamthitta to Malappuram which according to learned counsel is around 250 kms away from the place of residence of petitioner and second respondent. Petitioner is aged 38 years and her mother-second respondent is aged 60 years. It is true that the distance factor may cause inconvenience to the first respondent also. For, he has to travel the same distance to go to Family Court, Thiruvalla. The inconvenience that may be caused to the first respondent can be reduced to some extent by permitting him to appear in the transferee court through counsel except when his personal presence is necessary. Having considered the circumstances I am inclined to think that the hardship is comparatively more on petitioner in case request for transfer is not allowed. Hence I am inclined to allow the petition. Resultantly, the Petition is allowed in the following lines: (a) O.P(G&W) No.566 of 2010 pending in Family Court, Malappuram is withdrawn from Tr.P(C) No.263 of 2010 -: 3 :- that court and made over to Family Court, Thiruvalla for trial and disposal. (b) The transferor court while transmitting records of the case to the transferee court shall fix the date for appearance of parties in the transferee court with due intimation to the counsel on both sides. (c) It is made clear that except when the physical presence of respondent in the transferee court is necessary, he can appear through counsel. All pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv