IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 16TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 25TH BHADRA 1932 Tr.P(C).No. 228 of 2010() ------------------------- OP.549/2010 of FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM .................... PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: --------------------- SUDHA, AGED 40 YEARS, W/O. A.K. ASOKAN, PADUPUZHA WARRIAH, THRIKKANNAPURAM DESOM PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOBY JACOB PULICKEKUDY SRI.ANIL GEORGE SRI.K.S.SUMEESH RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: --------------- A.K. ASOKAN, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O. KUNHIKRISHNA WARRIOR, IYERKUNATH WARRIATH VEETTIL, IYERKUNNAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM TALUK-686 001 ADV. SRI.RAJEEV V.KURUP FOR R1 THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- Tr.P.C.No.228 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 16th day of September, 2010 ORDER This petition is filed by the wife for transfer of O.P.No.549 of 2010 from Family Court, Ettumanoor to Family Court, Malappuram. That is a petition filed by the respondent/husband seeking restitution of conjugal rights. Petitioner states that she is a permanent resident of Thrikkannapuram, Ponnani Taluk in Malappuram District and has to travel a long distance to Ettumanoor to contest the case which she is unable to. She therefore prayed that the case may be transferred to the Family Court of her district. Application is opposed by the respondent. It is pointed out by learned counsel for respondent that respondent is working as a Poojari in a temple and that he finds it difficult to leave the place, not to say about the inconvenience to go to Malappuram. 2. I have heard counsel on both sides. It is seen that petitioner is residing towards north western part of Malappuram District which adjoins Chavakkad Taluk. The distance from place of residence of petitioner to Malappuram and Thrissur appears to be almost equal. Hence if the case is brought to Family Court, Tr.P.C.No.228 of 2010 : 2 : Thrissur it will not cause much inconvenience to the petitioner while that can lessen the inconvenience of respondent. 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 request for transfer in matrimonial proceedings convenience of the wife has to be looked into. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case I am inclined to direct that the case be transferred to Family Court, Thrissur. Resultantly this petition is allowed in the following lines: (i) O.P.No.549 of 2010 pending in Family Court, Ettumanoor is withdrawn from that court and made over to Family court, Thrissur. (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 the parties is necessary, they can appear in the transferee court through their counsel. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-