IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 19TH DECEMBER 2011 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 Tr.P(C).No. 407 of 2011() ----------------------------------- OP(DIV).NO.1344/2011 of FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM AT ETTUMANOOR .................... PETITIONER/RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------- JISHA BENEDICT,AGED 26 YEARS, D/O.DELPHINA,MAMPALLY VEEDU,KANNANALLOOR.P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN SMT.R.S.SREEVIDYA SMT.DHANYA S.DHARAN RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER --------------------------------------------- AKSAJAN,AGED 28 YEARS,S/O.CHACKO, THEKKEAARAMPILLIL,VEMPALLY.P.O,KADAPPOOR KARA, KANAKKARY VILLAGE,MEENACHIL TALUK,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.C.HARIDAS THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts TP(C)NO.407/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEX A1 COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 11/10/09 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, ETTUMANOOR IN OP(DIV) 1344/11. ANNEX A2 COPY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT FILED THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II,KOLLAM. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO.JUDGE sts THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Tr.P.(C) No.407 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of December, 2011. ORDER This petition is filed by the wife seeking transfer of O.P.(Div.) No.1344 of 2011 from the Family Court, Kottayam, at Ettumanoor to the Family Court, Kollam. 2. That is an original petition filed by the respondent-husband for divorce. Petitioner states that she has filed a complaint before the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kollam against the respondent and others for offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and that the said proceeding is pending. It is stated that petitioner is residing at Kannanellur, in Kollam District and that she has to travel a long distance to reach the Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor. In the circumstances the request for transfer. 3. Petition is opposed by respondent. Learned counsel contended that on09.10.2011 petitioner with her relatives and others came to the house of respondent and created a scene and that respondent is really apprehensive of going to Kollam. Tr.P(C)No.407/2011 2 4. Merely because such an incident is alleged, request for transfer cannot be rejected. It is seen that petitioner is aged 26 years and is residing at Kannanellur, in Kollam District, she has to travel the long distance to Ettumanoor. Moreover, in connection with the complaint pending before learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kollam respondent has to attend that court. 5. 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 held that while considering the request for transfer of matrimonial proceedings convenience of the wife has to be looked into. Having regard to the circumstances stated before me I am inclined to think that comparative hardship is more on petitioner if request for transfer is not allowed. Inconvenience that may be caused to the respondent could be reduced by directing that he could appear in the Family Court, Kollam through counsel except when his physical presence is required. I am inclined to allow the request for transfer. Resultantly this petition is allowed as follows: (i) O.P.(Div.) No.1344 of 2011 pending in the Family Court, Kottayam, at Ettumanoor is withdrawn from that court and transferred to the Family Court, Kollam for trial and disposal. Tr.P(C)No.407/2011 3 (ii) The transferor court while transmitting records of the case to the transferee court shall fix the date for appearance of parties in the transferee court with due intimation to the counsel for both parties. (iii) Respondent can appear in the transferee court through counsel except when his physical presence is required. I.A.No.2705 of 2011 will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks