IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 30TH JUNE 2011 / 9TH ASHADHA 1933 Tr.P(C).No. 160 of 2011 TO TRANSFER UNNUMBERED OP (DIVORCE) OF 2011 AND IA.352/2011 FROM THE FAMILY COURT, THODUPUZHA TO THE FAMILY COURT, KOTTARAKKARA. PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------------ 1. ARYALAKSHMI, SUDHEESH BHAVAN, KANNIMEL (KARA), PATTAZHY P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. SULOCHANA, SUDHEESH BHAVAN, KANNIMEL (KARA), PATTAZHY P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.PREMCHAND RESPONDENT: PETITIONER ------------------------- RAJESH V.B., S/O.BHASKARAN, VADAKKETHARAYIL HOUSE, BYSON VALLEY P.O., BYSON VALLEY, IDUKKI DISTRICT - 685 222. BY ADV. SRI.N.K.SHYJU THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/06/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: I.A.NO.1151/2011 IN TR.P.(C) NO.160/2011 DISMISSED 30/6/2011 SD/- K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// AHZ/ K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ Tr.P.(C). NO. 160 OF 2011 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 30th day of June, 2011 O R D E R The first petitioner is the wife of the respondent. The second petitioner is the mother of the first petitioner. The respondent filed O.P.(Divorce) of 2011 (unnumbered) before the Family Court, Thodupuzha for divorce. It is alleged in the Original Petition that the first petitioner herein is of unsound mind. It is stated that the respondent also filed I.A.No.352 of 2011 for appointing the second petitioner as the guardian of the first petitioner. 2. The petitioners are residing at Pattazhi in Kollam District. It is stated that the Family Court, Kottarakkara is only about 6 Kms. away from the residence of the petitioners. It is also contended that the petitioners are not in a position to travel a long distance and appear before the Family Court, Thodupuzha. The petitioners state that they are financially very poor. Tr.P.(C) NO.160 OF 2011 :: 2 :: 3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the respondent is residing in an interior place in Idukki District and if the case is transferred as requested by the petitioners, he would have to travel more than 300 Kms. from his residence. 4. The Supreme Court in Sumitha Singh v. Kumar Sanjay and another (2001) 10 SCC 41), Mangla Patil Kale v. Sanjeev Kumar Kale ((2003) 10 SCC 280) and Rajwinder Kaur v. Balwinder Singh ((2003) 11 SCC 726) held that the convenience of the wife should be taken note of while considering the question of transfer. 5. Taking into account the hardship that would be caused to the petitioners if the case is tried before the Family Court, Thodupuzha and also taking into account the hardship that would be caused to the respondent if the case is transferred from the Family Court, Thodupuzha to the Family Court, Kottarakkara, I think the hardship that would be caused to the petitioners would be greater than the hardship that would be caused to the respondent. Tr.P.(C) NO.160 OF 2011 :: 3 :: 6. In the facts and circumstances, the Transfer Petition is allowed. O.P.(Divorce) of 2011 (unnumbered) and I.A.No.352 of 2011, pending before the Family Court, Thodupuzha shall stand transferred to the Family Court, Kottarakkara. The Family Court, Thodupuzha shall transmit the records to the Family Court, Kottarakkara. Parties shall appear before the Family Court, Kottarakkara on 27.7.2011. Taking into account the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent, it is made clear that the Family Court, Kottarakkara need not insist on the personal appearance of the respondent except on occasions where his personal appearance is absolutely essential. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/