IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2011 / 20TH SRAVANA 1933 TR.P(C).NO. 131 OF 2011() ------------------------------------- TO TRANSFER OPHMA.147/2011 FROM FAMILY COURT, KOLLAM TO FAMILY COURT, ALAPPUZHA .................... PETITIONERS/RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------ SINI.T., AGED 24, SUDHI NILAYAM, KARAIMAMURI, VALLIKKUNNAM P.O., ALAPPUZHA DIST. BY ADV. SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR SRI.R.RANJITH SRI.AJEESH K.SASI RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER AND 2ND RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. K.R.RAJESH, AGED 28, RAJESH BHAVANAM, AADINADU SOUTH, KULASEKHARAPURAM VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DIST. (THROUGH HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER K.RAVEENDRAN, RAJESH BHAVANAM, AADINADU SOUTH, KULASEKHARAPURAM VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DIST. 2. MURALI, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, S/O.RAGHAVAN, VILAKKATTUTHARAYIL HOUSE, KOCHALUMMOODU, KATTILKADAVU P.O., KULASEKHARAPURAM, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM. ADV. SRI.M.P.RAMNATH FOR R1 THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Tr.P(C) NO.131 of 2011 APPENDIX --------------- PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: ---------------------------------- ANNEXURE-A1 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION IN O.P(HMA) NO.147 OF 2011 OF THE FAMILY COURT, KOLLAM DATED 2.2.2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: ----------------------------------- ANNEXURE R1-1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF PREGNANCY TEST REPORT DATED 15.12.2010 IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER. ANNEXURE R1-2 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PRESCRIPTION DATED 16.11.2010 OF DR.SHYNI S., GYNECOLOGIST, THQH KARUNAGAPPALLY TO SINI (PETITIONER) WITH FURTHER ADVICE ON15.12.2010. ANNEXURE R1-3 OBSTETRIC SCAN REPORT DATED 18.12.2010 OF THE PETITIONER ISSUED BY DR. MEERA DMRD – MUTHOOT SCANS, KARUNAGAPPALLY. ANNEXURER 1-4 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE OP TICKET NO.66824 ISSUED FROM THQH KARUNAGAPPALLY TO PETITIONER. ANNEXURE R1-5 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 19.12.2010 WRITTEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE DOCTOR AFTER PREGNANCY WAS CONFIRMED. ANNEXURE R1-6 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY DATED 20.01.2011 EXECUTED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF HIS FATHER. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Tr.P.(C) No.131 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of August, 2011. ORDER This petition is filed by the wife seeking transfer of O.P.(HMA) No.147 of 2011 from Family Court, Kollam to Family Court, Alappuzha. It is stated in the petition that petitioner, along with her minor son is staying at Vallikkunnam and that it is necessary to have the proceedings held in Family Court, Alappuzha to avoid long traveling distance. It is also stated that petitioner was driven away from the matrimonial home by the parents of the first respondent in his absence and that she is facing threat that she will be killed. There are certain other allegations also made against the respondents. 2. Respondents appeared through counsel. It is contended that the traveling distance from Vallikkunnam, ie. the place of residence of petitioner to Kollam is only 30 kms. while the distance from Vallikkunnam to Alappuzha is more than double that distance. Learned counsel has produced maps of the Alappuzha and Kollam Districts to show that distance from Vallikkunnam to Alappuzha is more than the distance from Vallikkunnam to Kollam where the case is now pending. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner when faced with the above situation contended that the distance is almost the same and that the attempt of first respondent by filing O.P.(HMA) No.147 of 2011 at Kollam seeking divorce on Tr.P(C) No.131/2011 2 the ground of adultery is to malign petitioner in that locality. Learned counsel for respondents has also invited my attention to certain documents produced along with the counter affidavit to prove the allegation of adultery. 4. I am not inclined or required to go into those questions in this proceeding. The question whether those documents are genuine or not, or whether the same could be accepted are matters which the court concerned has to decide. 5. Now this court is concerned with the only question whether the request for transfer is to be allowed. The main ground for seeking transfer is the alleged inconvenience of petitioner due to the distance. It is not disputed that petitioner is staying with her parents at Vallikkunnam. The case is now pending in Family Court, Kollam. As I stated above, it is seen from the maps that the travelling distance from Vallikkunnam to Alappuzha is more than the distance from Vallikkunnam to Kollam. If that be so, on the ground of distance and inconvenience, petitioner cannot request for a transfer. 6. I am aware that convenience of the wife has to be looked into while considering the request for transfer (See Sumitha Singh v. Kumar Sanjay and another (AIR 2002 SC 396) and Arti Rani v. Dharmendra Kumar Gupta [(2008) 9 SCC 353]. On going through the materials before me I find that the transfer of the case from Family Court, Kollam to Family Court, Alappuzha will only increases the traveling distance and the Tr.P(C) No.131/2011 3 inconvenience of petitioner. I do not find any other justifiable ground to allow the request for transfer. Resultantly this petition is dismissed. I.A.No.1001 of 2011 will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks