IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 2ND AUGUST 2010 / 11TH SRAVANA 1932 TR.P(C).NO. 106 OF 2010() -------------------------------------- OP.134/2010 OF FAMILY COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER. -------------------- DIVYA MOLE R., AGED 27 YEARS, REMANIVILASAM, ERATHUVADAKKU, PATTAZHY P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADV. SMT.SANDHYA RAJU RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ BIJU KUMAR, AGED 34 YEARS, RESIDING AT R.S.NIVAS, KATTAYIKANAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Tr.P(C) No.106 of 2010 ==================================== Dated this the 02nd day of August, 2010 O R D E R Respondent is served on this petition sufficiently early but there is no response. 2. Petition is to transfer of O.P. No.134 of 2010 from Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram to Family Court, Kottarakkara. That is a petition filed by the respondent for restitution of conjugal rights. Petitioner is a resident of Pattazhi in Kollam District. Travelling distance from her place of residence to Family Court, Kottarakkara is very short. Her father is no more and she is staying along with mother. She filed an application in Family Court, Kottarakkara against respondent seeking maintenance for herself and her child. Counsel states that petitioner finds it difficult to travel the long distance from her place of residence to Thiruvananthapuram to contest the case and some close relative of her has to accompany her which cause much expense. 3. The Supreme Court in The Supreme Court in Sumitha Singh v. Kumar Sanjay and Another 9AIR Tr.P(C) No.106 of 2010 -: 2 :- 2002 SC 396) and Arti Rani v. Dharmendra Kumar Gupta ([2008] 9 SCC 353) has stated that when 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. I have gone through the petition and contentions raised by petitioner. It is seen that respondent is a resident of Kattayikonam in Thiruvananthapuram District. The comparative hardship that parties would suffer in case the case is transferred and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case I am satisfied that the inconvenience which petitioner would suffer if the case is not transferred outweighs inconvenience respondent has to suffer if the case is transferred. Having regarding to facts and circumstances of the case I am inclined to allow the request of petitioner. Resultantly, petition is allowed in the following terms. (i) O.P. No.134 of 2010 pending in Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram is withdrawn from that court and transferred to Family Court, Kottarakkara. Tr.P(C) No.106 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 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. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv