IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH JULY 2011 / 5TH SRAVANA 1933 Tr.P(C).No. 388 of 2010() ----------------------------------- OP.569/2010 OF FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD TO FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR. .................... PETITIONER: ------------------ K.B. SUBHA, D/O.BALAKRISHNAN, KUTTIYAM MOOCHIKKAL HOUSE, P.O. PAYAMKULAM, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.JAYARAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- SACHIDANANDAN, S/O.KUTTYNARAYANAN, KAROLLY VEEDU, P.O. NAZHANGATTIRI, PATTAMBI, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 679 311. BY THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs Tr.P(C).No. 388 of 2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE A1: COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 07/07/2010 IN O.P. NO. 569/2010, ON THE FILES OF FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD. ANNEXURE A2: COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 04/09/2010 IN M.C. NO.446/2010 ON THE FILES OF FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR. RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Tr.P(C) No.388 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 27th day of July, 2011 O R D E R Notice on this petition was served on the respondent through counsel appearing for him in the court below. That is sufficient service in view of Rule 59 of the High Service Rules. Hence it is declared that service of notice on the respondent is sufficient. 2. This petition is for transfer of O.P. No.569 of 2010 from Family Court, Palakkad to Family Court, Thrissur. That is a petition filed by the respondent-husband for restitution of conjugal rights. Petitioner, aged about 25 years is a resident of Payamkulam in Thalappilly Taluk. It is stated that she has a 2 years old child to look after. Moreover, she has filed M.C. No.446 of 2010 in Family Court, Thrissur seeking maintenance for herself and child from the respondent. It is stated that petitioner finds it difficult to travel all the distance from her place of residence to Palakkad to contest the case. Respondent aged 33 years is a resident of Pattambi, in Ottappalam Taluk. No doubt transfer of petition from Family Court, Palakkad to Family Court, Thrissur Tr.P(C) No.388 of 2010 -: 2 :- may cause some inconvenience to the respondent. 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. That of course does not mean that inconvenience of the husband has to be ignored. It is stated that petitioner aged about 25 years is a resident of Payamkulam in Thalappilly Taluk, she has a 2 years old child to look after and she finds it difficult to travel all the distance from the place of her residence to Palakkad to contest the case. Having regard to the circumstances stated I am inclined to think that the hardship is comparatively more on petitioner in case request for transfer is not allowed. The inconvenience that may be caused to the respondent can be reduced by permitting him to appear in the transferee court through counsel except when his physical presence is required. Hence I am inclined to allow the petition. Resultantly, the Petition is allowed in the following lines: Tr.P(C) No.388 of 2010 -: 3 :- (a) O.P. No.569 of 2010 pending in Family Court, Palakkad is withdrawn from that court and made over to Family Court, Thrissur for trial and disposal. (b) 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 on both sides. (c) Family Court, Thrissur shall ensure that O.P. No.569 of 2010 (transferred to it) and M.C. No.446 of 2010 (pending in that court) are posted as far as possible on the same dates. (d) It is made clear that except when physical presence of respondent in the transferee Tr.P(C) No.388 of 2010 -: 4 :- court is necessary, he can appear through counsel. All pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv