IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH DECEMBER 2010 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 Tr.P(C).No. 358 of 2010() ------------------------- OP.605/2010 of FAMILY COURT,THRISSUR TO FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER: ---------------------- BINDU D/O.LATE BABY PAUL, KANJIRATHINKAL HOUSE, BHAVANA LANE, EDAPPALLY P.O., COCHIN-24. BY ADV. SMT.K.V.BHADRA KUMARI RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- FIJO, S/O.E.P.PETER, PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT ELUVATHINGAL MUTTICKAL HOUSE, P.O.PARAPPUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680 552, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT C/O.C.P.VARGHESE, NO.19, MALAR MULLAI F1 APARTMENT, MULLAI STREET, (SHAKTHI NAGAR) ADAMPAKAM, CHENNAI-600 088. BY ADV. SRI.M.B.PRAJITH THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== T.P(C) NO.358 of 2010 ==================================== Dated this the 15th day of December, 2010 O R D E R This petition is filed by the wife for transfer of O.P. No.605 of 2010 filed by her for divorce in Family Court, Thrissur. She wants the case to be transferred to Family Court, Ernakulam. Reasons stated is that she is staying at Edappally in Kochi and working in a private firm at Ernakulam. Learned counsel states that petitioner’s father is no more and that there is nobody to accompany her to attend Family Court, Thrissur to contest the case. The case happened to be filed in Family Court, Thrissur considering the jurisdictional issue. 2. 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 not controverted that petitioner is a resident of Edappally, in Kochi and that she is working in a private firm at Tr.P(C) No.358 of 2010 -: 2 :- Ernakulam. Respondent is a resident of Parappur, in Thrissur District. Having considered comparative hardship of the parties I am inclined to think that hardship is more on petitioner if transfer requested for is not allowed than the inconvenience that may be caused to the respondent if transfer is allowed. Hence I am inclined to allow this petition. Resultantly, petition is allowed in the following lines: (i) O.P.No.605 of 2010 pending in Family Court, Thrissur is withdrawn from that court and made over to Family Court, Ernakulam. (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 on both sides. (iii) It is made clear that except when physical presence of respondent in the transferee court is necessary, he can appear through counsel. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv