IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 13TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 22ND BHADRA 1932 Tr.P(C).No. 10 of 2009() ------------------------ OP.1754/2008 of FAMILY COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER/RESPONDENT IN OP: ------------------------ KAVITHA.S., AGED 32 YEARS W/O. T.L.SANTHOSH KUMAR, VISHNU VIHAR KUMARAPURAM VILLAGE, KARTHIKAPPALLY ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,NOW RESIDING AT KOCHU VEETTIL PUTHIYAKAVU, MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA DIST. BY ADV. SRI.P.HARIDAS RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN OP: ----------------------------------------- SANTHOSHKUMAR T.K., AGED 38 YEARS THEKKINETHUMALI HOUSE, PERUMBAVOOR KARA PERUMBAVOOR ,KUNNATHUNADU TALUK. ADV. SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN FOR R1 THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- Tr.P.C.No.10 of 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this 13th day of September, 2010 ORDER This petition is filed by the wife requesting transfer of O.P.No.1754 fo 2008 of Family court, Ernakulam to Family Court, Alappuzha. It is stated that petitioner is a resident of Mavelikkara, working as a teacher in a U.P school at Thiruvananthapuram and staying there in a hostel. She finds it difficult to travel up to Ernakulam to contest the case. Moreover she has filed O.P.No.243 of 2009 in Family Court, Alappuzha claiming maintenance from respondent. Learned counsel for petitioner requested that in the above circumstances the case may be transferred to Family Court, Alappuzha. Learned counsel for respondent opposes the application for transfer. It is contended that petitioner who travels from her place of residence to Thiruvananthapuram cannot have any difficulty to travel up to Ernakulam. 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 request for transfer in matrimonial proceedings convenience of the wife has Tr.P.C.No.10 of 2009 : 2 : to be looked into. O.P.No.1754 of 2008 is for a declaration that marriage is null and void. O.P.No.243 of 2009 is for maintenance. These cases are to be decided by the same court. Respondent has not so far requested for transfer of O.P.No.243 of 2009 to Family Court, Ernakulam. It is not disputed that Family Court at Alappuzha is nearer to the place of residence of petitioner. She is working at Thiruvananthapuram. She has to go to Thiruvananthapuram occasionally (where she stays in a hostel) does not mean that she has to travel a longer distance from her place of residence to Ernakulam to contest the case. Having regard to the circumstances stated, I am inclined to think that comparative hardship is more on petitioner if transfer requested for is not allowed than the hardship of respondent if transfer is allowed. Hence I am inclined to allow the petition. Resultantly this petition is allowed in the following lines: (i) O.P.No.1754 of 2008 pending in Family Court, Ernakulam is withdrawn from that court and made over to Family Court, Alappuzha. (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) Family Court, Alappuzha shall as far as possible post all the cases on the same dates. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-