IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 23RD DECEMBER 2011 / 2ND POUSHA 1933 TR.P(C).NO. 314 OF 2011() -------------------------------------- OP.870/2011 OF FAMILY COURT, NEDUMANGAD PETITIONER -------------------- DEEPTHI, D/O.SREENIVASAN, AGED 22 YEARS, KOTTILICKAL HOUSE, P.O.AVANOOR, VARADIYAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.A.SATHEESA BABU RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- SOORAJ, S/O.SUGUNAN, AGED 34 YEARS, THIRUVANKODY HOUSE, CHIRAYANKEEZHU, SARKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.M.DINESH THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: TR.P(C) NO.314 OF 2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE-I- TRUE COPY OF THE O.P NO. 366/2011 PENDING BEFORE FAMILY OCURT, THRISSUR. ANNEXURE-II- TRUE COPY OF THE O.P 870/2011 PENDING BEFORE FAMILY COURT, NEDUMANGADU. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Tr.P(C) No.314 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 23rd day of December, 2011 O R D E R Respondent is served but there is no response. 2. This petition is filed by the wife seeking transfer of O.P. No.870 of 2011 from the Family Court, Nedumangad to the Family Court, Thrissur. That is a petition filed by the respondent- husband for dissolution of marriage. It is stated that petitioner is aged 22 years, residing with her parents at Varadiyam, in Thrissur District, she has filed O.P. No.366 of 2011 in the Family Court, Thrissur seeking recovery of value of ornaments from the respondent and that if O.P. No.870 of 2011 is continued to be in the Family Court, Nedumangad she has to travel a long distance. Hence the request for transfer. It is submitted by learned counsel that distance from the place of residence of petitioner to Thrissur is 10 kms whereas distance to the Family Court, Nedumangad is about 300 kms. It is also stated that petitioner is aged 22 years and her parents are aged and sick. There is nobody to accompany her to Nedumangad. 3. The Supreme Court in Sumitha Singh v. Kumar Tr.P(C) No.314 of 2011 -: 2 :- 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. Having regard to the circumstances stated I am inclined to think that comparative hardship is more on petitioner if request for transfer is not allowed. Inconvenience that may be caused to the respondent can be reduced by directing that he can appear in the transferee court through counsel except when his physical presence is required. Resultantly, Transfer Petition is allowed as follows: (a) O.P. No.870 of 2011 pending in the Family Court, Nedumangad is withdrawn from that court and made over to the Family Court, Thrissur 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 Tr.P(C) No.314 of 2011 -: 3 :- counsel on both sides. (c) Family Court, Thrissur shall ensure that O.P.870 of 2011 (transferred to it) and O.P.No.366 of 2011 (pending in that court) are posted as far as possible on the same dates. (d) It is made clear that except when physical presence of the respondent in the transferee court is necessary, he can appear through counsel. All pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv