IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 26TH OCTOBER 2010 / 4TH KARTHIKA 1932 Tr.P(C).No. 59 of 2009() ------------------------ OP.7/2009 of FAMILY COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER/RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------- SUDHA, D/O.SAVITHRI AMMA, SINDHOORATHIL, THULAMPARAMBU NADUVATHUM MURI, HARIPAD. BY ADV. SRI.K.HARILAL SRI.R.GOPAN RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------- K.P.NARAYANAN, DIVYA, PATTURAIKKAL, THRISSUR. THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/10/2010, ALONG WITH TPC NO. 60 OF 2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Tr.P.(C) No.59 & 60 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of October, 2010. ORDER These petitions are for transfer of O.P. Nos.7 of 2009 and 8 of 2009 of Family Court, Ernakulam to Family Court, Alappuzha. Notice of these petitions were issued to the respondent in his address stated in the Original Petitions filed in the Family Court, Ernakulam but the same were returned unserved. Hence notice was ordered and served on counsel appearing for respondent in the trial court and a memo to that effect is also filed. Service of notice on counsel is sufficient and shall be deemed to be service on the party under Rule 59 of the Kerala High Court Rules, 1971. Hence service on respondent is declared as sufficient. 2. O.P.No.7 of 2009 is filed by the respondent/husband for custody of the child while O.P.No.8 of 2009 is filed by him for dissolution of marriage. Petitioner/wife belongs to Harippad, in Alappuzha District. She states that the child is studying in 5th standard at Amritha Vidhyalayam, Harippad and that herself and child are staying in her paternal home at Harippad which is about 100 kms. away from Ernakulam. She is unemployed and is depending on the meager income of the father. There is nobody to accompany her to Family Court, Ernakulam. Tr.P(C) No.59 & 60/2009 2 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 stated that while considering request for transfer of matrimonial proceedings convenience of the wife has to be looked into. True that does not mean that inconvenience if any of the husband need not be considered. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case I am inclined to think that comparative hardship is more on the petitioner/wife if the request for transfer is not allowed than the inconvenience that may be caused to the respondent/husband if the request is allowed. Considering the hardship of petitioner and the circumstances stated above, I am inclined to allow this petition. Resultantly this petition is allowed in the following lines: i. O.P. Nos.7 of 2009 and 8 of 2009 of Family Court, Ernakulam are withdrawn from that court and made over to Family Court, Alappuzha for trial and disposal. ii. The transferor court shall, while transmitting records of the cases to the transferee court fix the date for appearance of parties in the transferee court with due intimation to the counsel on both sides. Tr.P(C) No.59 & 60/2009 3 iii. Transferee court shall ensure that as far as possible all the cases are posted on the same dates. vi. It is made clear that except when the physical presence of respondent in court is necessary he can appear through counsel. I.A.Nos.455 of 2009 and 2211 of 2010 in Tr.P.(C) No.59 of 2009 and I.A.No.459 of 2009 and 2213 of 2010 in Tr.P.(C) No.60 of 2010 will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks