IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 7TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 16TH BHADRA 1932 Tr.P(C).No. 143 of 2010() ----------------------- OP(HMA).1111/2009 OF FAMILY COURT, ALAPPUZHA ................. PETITIONER : ----------------- NEETHU K.B., ARA 44, T.C.22/863, VIJAYA BHAVAN, KURUMKUDI LANE, MANACADU P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. SRI.G.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.K.SANEESH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- R.NARAYANAN, KAVERI, 373/31, PAHAYAVEEDU P.O., ALLEPPEY. BY ADVS. SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR SMT.BHAVANA VELAYUDHAN THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Mn THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. --------------------------------------- Tr.P.(C) NO.143 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of September, 2010. ORDER This petition is filed by the wife seeking transfer of OP(HMA) No.1111 of 2009 from Family Court, Alappuzha to Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. That is a petition filed by the respondent-husband seeking divorce on the ground of alleged cruelty of petitioner wife. Petitioner states that she is residing at Thriuvananthapuram with her parents, she is unemployed and depending on her father who is running a petty shop. Her mother is a house wife. She has travel long distance from her place of residence to Alappuzha to contest the case. Respondent though belongs to Alappuzha is employed in the Gulf in a company as General Manager and comes to his native place only occasionally. Hence transfer of the case to Thiruvananthapuram will not prejudicially affect respondent. 2. Application is opposed by the respondent. It is contended that since respondent is working abroad, the case is being conducted on his behalf of by his father, aged 75 years as a power of attorney holder. Learned counsel states that power of attorney holder is a heart patient and cannot undertake long journey if the case is transferred to Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. 3. It is not in dispute before me that petitioner, the wife aged about Tr.P.(C) NO.143 OF 2010 2 24 years who is a resident of Manakkad in Thiruvananthapuram District. She states that she has to depend on her father who is running a petty shop. She has to travel the whole distance from her place of residence to Alappuzha. On the other hand, though respondent belongs to Alappuzha he is working abroad and comes to his native place only occasionally. The objection of respondent is that since power of attorney holder of respondent is aged about 75 years and a heart patient he cannot be undertake long journey. It is not as if very now and then the power of attorney holder has to be present in court. If necessary, it is also possible for respondent to appoint some other person as power of attorney holder. Learned counsel for petitioners points out from Annexure 1 petition (OP(HMA) No.1111/2009) filed in the Family Court, Alappuzha on 28-11-2009 that the said petition was filed by the respondent personally and not through the power of attorney holder. Learned counsel for respondent states that the power of attorney was executed on 27-11-2009. 4. While considering request for transfer of matrimonial proceedings, convenience of the wife has to be considered. No doubt, that does not mean that inconvenience of the husband whatever it be is to be ignored. In this case, respondent has no inconvenience since he is working abroad and the inconvenience pleaded by him is only his power of attorney holder. That would not outweigh the inconvenience of Tr.P.(C) NO.143 OF 2010 3 petitioner. If the case is not transferred she has to travel a long distance and that involved huge expenses also since she may have to be accompanied some relatives of her. Considering the comparative hardship, I am inclined to think it is mere for petitioner-wife. Hence I am inclined to allow the petition. Resultantly, this petition is allowed in the following lines: i. OP(HMA)No.1111/2009 is withdrawn from Family Court, Alappuzha and made over to Family court, Thiruvananthapuram for trial and disposal. ii. The transferor court while transmitting records of the case shall fix the date of appearance of the parties in the transferee court with notice to counsel on both sides . iii. It is made clear that the respondent, except when his physical presence is required, can appear in the transferee court through counsel. THOMAS P JOSEPH,JUDGE. pm