IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH JULY 2011 / 5TH SRAVANA 1933 Tr.P(C).No. 230 of 2010() ------------------------------------ OP.(HMA) NO.624/2010 OF FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM AT ETTUMANOOR TO THE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. .................... PETITIONER: -------------------- B. BEENA, D/O.LATE T.K. BALAKRISHNAN, AGED 35 YEARS, T.C.NO.25/2789, AMBUJAVILASOM VEEDU, AMBUJAVILASOM ROAD, PULIMOODU, VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.P.SHINOD, SRI.RAM MOHAN.G., SRI.MANU V. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- P.B. SHAJIMON, S/O.BHASKARAN, PARAYIL HOUSE, MADUKKAKUNNU, URULIKUNNAM, POOVARANI P.O., PAIKA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 101. BY THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs Tr.P(C).No. 230 of 2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE A: COPY OF THE DISABILITY CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE CHAIRMAN OF THE DISTRICT MEDICAL BOARD, PATHANAMTHITTA. ANNEXURE B: COPY OF THE RENT DEED EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER. ANNEXURE C: COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT AS O.P.(HMA) NO.624/2010 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM AT ETTUMANOOR. RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Tr.P(C) No.230 of 2010 ==================================== Dated this the 27th day of July, 2011 O R D E R Though respondent is served through the Sub Court, he remains absent. 2. This petition is for transfer of O.P(HMA) No.624 of 2010 from Family Court, Kottayam, at Ettumanoor to Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. That is a petition filed by the respondent-husband for divorce. Petitioner states that she is disabled by 45% due to congenital short limb. It is stated that she is staying at Vanchiyoor along with her son and mother in a rented house and her father is no more. It is further stated that her child is studying in Jawahar Public School at Vanchiyoor in Thiruvananthapuram District. In the circumstances it is stated that petitioner finds it difficult to travel all the distance from her place of residence to Family Court, Kottayam, at Ettumanoor to contest the case. Learned counsel has produced Annexure-A which shows physical disability of petitioner by 45%. Annexure- B, photocopy of the rent deed executed by petitioner is produced to show that petitioner is staying in a rented premises at Thiruvananthapuram. Tr.P(C) No.230 of 2010 -: 2 :- 3. 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 seen that petitioner is disabled by 45%, her father is no more, she is staying with her son and mother in a rented premises and her child is studying in a Public School at Thiruvananthapuram. In the circumstances if the case continues in Family Court, Kottayam, at Ettumanoor petitioner has to travel all the distance from her place of residence to that Family Court to contest the case with nobody to accompany her. Respondent is working in the Local Fund Audit Department at Thodupuzha. No doubt the transfer of the case may cause some inconvenience to the respondent. But that can be reduced by permitting him to appear in the transferee court through counsel except when his physical presence is required. Having regard to the circumstances stated I am inclined to think that the hardship is comparatively more on petitioner in case request for transfer is not allowed. Hence I am inclined to allow the petition. Resultantly, the Petition is allowed in the following lines: Tr.P(C) No.230 of 2010 -: 3 :- (a) O.P(HMA) No.624 of 2010 pending in Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor is withdrawn from that court and made over to Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram for trial and disposal. (b) 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. (c) It is made clear that except when physical presence of respondent in the transferee court is necessary, he can appear through counsel. All pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv