IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2011 / 23RD ASHADHA 1933 Tr.P(C).No. 137 of 2011() ------------------------- OP.1545/2010 of FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM TO FAMILY COURT,KOLLAM .................... PETITIONER: -------------------- RASMIDEVI.R., D/O.M.RADHAKRISHNA REDDIAR, SREE BHAVAN, KAIKULANGARA NORTH, KOLLAM. NOW RESIDING AT SREEPADAM, VALLY ARIKATHU, KANNIMELESSERRY, KAVANAD (P.O), KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN, SRI.SAIJO HASSAN, SRI.BENOJ C. AUGUSTINE, SRI.PRATHAP PILLAI, SRI.RAFEEK. V.K. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- BALAMURUGAN, S/O.P.VISWANATHA REDDIAR, BHARATHY BHAVAN, PODUVAL LANE, NOW RESIDING AT KAVUVEEDU, OTHARA LANE, KARAPPUZHA, KOTTAYAM - 686 039. BY ADV. SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss Tr.P(C)NO.`137/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEX.1: COPY OF O.P.(DIVORCE) NO.1545/2010 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- Tr.P(C).No.137 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 14th day of July, 2011 ORDER Petitioner, wife seeks transfer of O.P(Div).No.1545 of 2010 from Family Court, Kottayam, at Ettumanoor to Family Court, Kollam. That petition is filed by the respondent seeking divorce. It is stated that petitioner is a resident of Kollam and that it is difficult for her to travel from Kollam to Ettumanoor. Financial difficulties is also stated to be a reason for seeking transfer of the case to the Family Court, Kollam. Another reason stated is that since the husband/respondent is at Kottayam, she has threat of danger to her life. Learned counsel for respondent while resisting the application contended that none of these grounds exist in that, petitioner is permanently staying in Bangalore in connection with her employment in the IBM, a multi national company at Bangalore . Hence existence of financial difficulty does not arise. Respondent is working at Dubai and no question of threat is therefore involved. It is also submitted by learned counsel that counseling of the parties is already over at Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor and if before the report is submitted the case is transferred, again the parties may have to Tr.P(C).No.137 of 2011 -: 2 :- go for counseling. 2. The Supreme Court in Sumitha Singh Vs. Sanjay Kumar & Another (AIR 2002 SC 396) and Arti Rani Lrs. Pinki Devi and Another Vs. Darmendra Kumar Gupta (2008 (9) SCC 353) has stated that while considering the request for transfer in matrimonial proceedings convenience of the wife has to be looked into. It is seen that petitioner, wife is aged about 30 years. Even if it is assumed that she is working at Bangalore, I must remember that her paternal home is at Kollam and hence it is convenient for her to go to Kollam if the case is transferred to Family Court, Kollam rather than herself either singly, or accompanied by relatives going to Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor which involves expenses as well. Since respondent is now working at Dubai, it makes no difference whether the case is tried at Ettumanoor or Kollam. Having regard to the comparative hardship, I am inclined to think that request of petitioner has to be favoured. At the same time if counseling is already over at Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor, records shall be send to the transferee Court with the report of the Counselor of that Court so that further counseling may not be required. Tr.P(C).No.137 of 2011 -: 3 :- Resultantly this petition is allowed in the following lines: (i) O.P(Div).No.1545 of 2010 pending in Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor is withdrawn from that court and made over to Family Court, Kollam. (ii) The transferor court shall transmit records of the case to the transferee court with due intimation to the counsel on both sides as to the date of appearance in the transferee court. (iii) It is made clear that except when physical presence of respondent is necessary it is open to him to appear through counsel in the transferee court. (iv) It is directed that transferor Court shall transmit records of the case to the transferee Court along with report of the Counselor regarding counseling. If parties are desirous of an early disposal of the case they can request the transferee Court to do so and if any such request is made the transferee Court shall consider it and pass appropriate orders. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-