IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH OCTOBER 2010 / 14TH ASWINA 1932 Tr.P(C).No. 269 of 2010() ------------------------- OP.504/2009 of FAMILY COURT, ALAPPUZHA .................... PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER IN OP ------------------------------------------------------- REKHA B.NAIR,D/O.BHASKARAN NAIR, KARIKKATTOOR,PANAMATTOM.P.O,PANAMATTOM KARA, ELAMGULAM VILLAGE,KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.RAJEEV V.KURUP RESPONDENT: PETITIONER IN OP ------------------------------- S.MADHUSUDHANAN,S/O.SIVANKUTTYUNNITHAN, PULLAMPALLIL HOUSE,KAPPIL EAST MURI, KRISHNAPURAM VILLAGE,KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK, ALLEPPEY-690 533. THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- Tr.P(C).No.269 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 06th day of October, 2010 ORDER Though respondent is served on this petition, there is no response. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner. 2. This petition is filed by the wife seeking transfer of O.P.No.504 of 2009 from Family Court, Alappuzha to Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor. That is a petition filed by respondent/husband for divorce. Petitioner/wife states that she is staying at Panamattom near Elamgulam Village in Kottayam district and has already filed O.P.No.725 of 2010 in Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor for recovery of gold ornaments and M.C.No.291 of 2010 seeking maintenance from respondent. In the circumstance it is appropriate that the case pending in Family Court, Alappuzha is transferred to Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor for joint trial. It is also stated that since petitioner is residing at Panamattom she has to travel a long distance to contest the case in Family Court, Alappuzha. Learned counsel for petitioner states that in the circumstance request for transfer may be allowed. Tr.P(C).No.269 of 2010 : 2 : 3. The Supreme Court in Sumitha Singh Vs. Sanjay Kumar & Another (AIR 2002 SC 396) and Arti Rani Lrs. Pinki Devi and Another Vs. Darmendra Kumar Gupta (2008 (9) SCC 353) has stated that while considering request for transfer in matrimonial proceedings convenience of the wife has to be looked into. It is seen from the petition that respondent/husband is a resident of Karthikapally Taluk in Allapuzha district while petitioner belongs to Panamattom in Kottayam district. She has to travel long distance to reach Family Court at Alappuzha. She has to be accompanied by some relative which involves expenses also. That apart, two cases initiated by petitioner are pending in Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumannor. In connection with that, respondent has to appear in that court. So far as respondent has not made any request for transfer of those cases to Alappuzha for any reason whatsoever. 4. Having considering the comparative hardship of the parties I am satisfied that in the circumstances stated hardship is more on petitioner if transfer requested for is not allowed than the inconvenience respondent may have to suffer if transfer is allowed. Hence I am inclined to allow the petition. Tr.P(C).No.269 of 2010 : 3 : Resultantly this petition is allowed in the following lines: (i) O.P.No.504 of 2009 pending in Family Court, Alappuzha is withdrawn from that court and made over to Family court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor. (ii) The transferor court shall transmit records of the case to the transferee court with due intimation to the counsel on both sides as to the date of appearance in the transferee court. (iii) Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor is directed to post, as far as possible all the cases on the same dates. (iv) It is made clear that except when his personal appearance is required, respondent can appear in the transferee court through counsel. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-