IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 17TH BHADRA 1932 TR.P(C).NO. 191 OF 2010() ------------------------------------- OP.54/2010 OF FAMILY COURT,THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER ----------------- P.R.SEENA, D/O. P.RAGHAVAN, 'PRAS', PIPE LINE ROAD, KARAPARAMBA, KOZHIKODE, KERALA. BY ADV. SRI.NIRMAL. S RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- BIJU B.PILLA, S/O. DR.B.BALAKRISHNA PILLA, BHADRA, MAVUNGAL HOUSE, AARANKALLU, MANNUTHY P.O., THRISSUR. THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Tr.P(C) No.191 of 2010 ==================================== Dated this the 08th day of September, 2010 O R D E R This Petition is filed by the wife seeking transfer of O.P.No.54 of 2010 from Family Court, Thrissur to Family Court, Kozhikode. Petitioner, aged about 33 years is a permanent resident of Kozhikode now working in Kendriya Vidayala at Rameswaram. Respondent belongs to Thrissur. Respondent filed O.P. No.54 of 2010 seeking restitution of conjugal rights. Difficulty of petitioner is that she is a permanent resident of Kozhikode and now working at Rameswaram, she has two children; the eldest studying at Rameswaram and youngest child staying with her is aged less than a year. She has no relatives at Thrissur. In the circumstance she finds it difficult to travel to Thrissur every now and then and conduct the case. Respondent though served on this petition remained absent. Learned counsel for petitioner has highlighted difficulties petitioner has to suffer if she has to contest the case at Family Court, Thrissur. 2. The Supreme Court in Sumitha Singh v. Kumar Sanjay and another (AIR 2002 SC 396) and Arti Rani v. Tr.P(C) No.191 of 2010 -: 2 :- 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. Here petitioner aged 33 years is a resident of Kozhikdoe now working at Rameswaram. Since she has no relatives at Thrissur she has to come to Thrissur alone or, accompanied by some of her relatives. She may also find it difficult to look after her children; eldest is studying at Rameswaram and the youngest staying with her is aged less than a year. So far as respondent is concerned he can reach Kozhikode by train without much difficulty. Having regard to these aspects I am inclined to think that comparative hardship is more on the petitioner if the transfer requested is not allowed than the hardship of respondent if request is allowed. Hence I am inclined to allow the petition. Resultantly, petition is allowed in the following lines: (i) O.P. No.54 of 2010 pending in Family Court, Thrissur is withdrawn from that court and made over to Family Court, Kozhikode. Tr.P(C) No.191 of 2010 -: 3 :- (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 parties. (iii) 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