IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 22ND DECEMBER 2011 / 1ST POUSHA 1933 Tr.P(C).No. 161 of 2011() ------------------------- OP.1671/2010 of FAMILY COURT,THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER/ RESPONDENT ------------------------------ NAMITHA, AGED 29, D/O.VISWAMBHARAN, PUTHENPARAMBIL HOUSE, PALLURUTHI P.O., KOCHI-6. BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS J.ANAKKALLUNKAL RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------- P.V.ASOKAN,AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.VELAYUDHAN PUTHENPURA HOUSE, VARAKKARA P.O., AMBALLOOR VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Tr.P.(C) No.161 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of December, 2011. ORDER Notice to the respondent was returned with the endorsement that addressee is out of India. Thereafter notice was ordered to be served on the counsel for respondent in the Family Court concerned. Accordingly notice was served but, there is no response. There is sufficient service of notice on the respondent. 2. The request is made by the wife for transfer of O.P. No.1671 of 2010 from Family Court, Thrissur to the Family Court, Ernakulam. That is a petition filed by the respondent-husband for restitution of conjugal rights. It is stated that petitioner has filed O.P.No.677 of 2011 in the Family Court, Ernakulam seeking divorce. It is also stated that petitioner is residing at Palluruthy, in Ernakulam District and has to travel a long distance to reach Thrissur. Hence the request for transfer. 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 held that while considering the request for transfer of matrimonial proceedings convenience of the wife has to be looked into. Tr.P(C)No.161/2011 2 4. Since O.P.No.677 of 2011 seeking divorce (preferred by petitioner) is pending in the Family Court, Ernakulam it is only appropriate that the said case and O.P.No.1671 of 2010 of the Family Court, Thrissur where respondent seeks restitution of conjugal rights are tried and disposed of by the same court. Respondent has not so far request for transfer of O.P.No.677 of 2011 from Family Court, Ernakulam. Petitioner is aged 29 years and she has to travel the long distance to reach Thrissur. Having regard to the circumstances stated before me 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 could be reduced by directing that he could appear in the Family Court, Ernakulam through counsel except when his physical presence is required. I am inclined to allow the request for transfer. Resultantly this petition is allowed as follows: (i) O.P.No.1671 of 2010 pending in the Family Court, Thrissur is withdrawn from that court and transferred to the Family Court, Ernakulam for trial and disposal. (ii) 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 for both parties. (iii) The transferee court shall post the cases - O.P.No.1671 of 2010 (being transferred to that court) and O.P.No.677 of 2011 (pending in that Tr.P(C)No.161/2011 3 court) as far as possible on the same dates. (iv) Respondent can appear in the transferee court through counsel except when his physical presence is required. I.A.No.1152 of 2011 will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks