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. 299 OF 2010() -------------------------------------- OPDIV.813/2010 OF FAMILY COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER: ------------------ SHYNI IMMANUEL, D/O.M.P.IMMANUEL, AGED 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT MULLAKAL HOUSE R.C.STREET, NEAR TRANSPORT BUS STAND, NEYYATTINKARA, NEYYATTINKARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA SRI.M.S.KALESH SMT.A.V.PRIYA SRI.HARISH GOPINATH SRI.V.VINAY MENON SMT.KVP.JAYALEKSHMY SRI.M.AJAY (IRUMPANAM) RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER --------------------------------------------- SAJEEV V.ISSAC, S/O.V.V.ISSAC, AGED 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT VALLIKKATTIL HOUSE, MANGATTOOR KARA, KOLENCHERY P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682311. ADV. SRI.BIJU ABRAHAM THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Tr.P(C) No.299 of 2010 ==================================== Dated this the 26th day of October, 2010 O R D E R This petition is filed by the petitioner-wife seeking transfer of O.P(Div.) No.813 of 2010 from Family Court, Ernakulam to Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. That is a petition filed by the respondent-husband seeking divorce. Petitioner states that she is a resident of Neyyattinkara, in Thiruvananthapuram District. It is stated that her father aged 79 years is sick and her mother aged 72 years is bedridden and there is nobody to accompany her to go to Family Court, Ernakulam. She also finds it difficult to travel all the distance from her place of residence at Neyyattinkara to Family Court, Ernakulam. Petition is opposed by the respondent. It is stated that on three occasions for counselling petitioner appeared in Family Court, Ernakulam and the case is posted for objection. Hence there is no reason to allow the request made by the petitioner. 2. 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 Tr.P(C) No.299 of 2010 -: 2 :- that while considering request for transfer of matrimonial proceedings convenience of the wife has to be looked into. That of course does not mean that inconvenience of the husband has to be ignored. It is not disputed that petitioner is staying in the paternal home at Neyyattinkara in Thiruvananthapuram District. She may find it difficult to travel all the distance from her place of residence to Family Court, Ernakulam to contest the case. That, petitioner has appeared on three occasions in Family Court, Ernakulam is no ground to compel petitioner to appear again in Family Court, Ernakulam and contest the case when it is stated that her parents are sick and there is nobody to accompany her. Considering the facts and circumstances I am satisfied that the comparative hardship is more on the petitioner if the request for transfer is not allowed than the inconvenience that may be caused to the respondent if transfer is ordered. Hence I am inclined to allow this petition. Resultantly, this petition is allowed in the following lines: (i) O.P. No.813 of 2010 pending in Family Court, Ernakulam is withdrawn from that court and made over to Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. Tr.P(C) No.299 of 2010 -: 3 :- (ii) The transferor court while transmitting records of the case to the transferee court shall fix date for appearance of parties in the transferee court with due intimation to the counsel for both parties. (iii) It is made clear that except when physical presence of respondent in court is necessary he can appear through counsel. (iv) Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram shall dispose of O.P. No.813 of 2010 as expeditiously as possible. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv