IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 29TH OCTOBER 2010 / 7TH KARTHIKA 1932 TR.P(C).NO. 195 OF 2010() -------------------------------------- OP.432/2010 OF FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM .................... PETITIONER: ------------------ REVATHY, AGED 26 YEARS, D/O.A.RAJAGOPAL, REVATHY, KARIKKOTTUVILA LANE, KUDAPPANAKKUNNU P.O., THRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.D.AJITHKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- BIJU D.NAIR, S/O.DAMODHARAN NAIR, BIBA COTTAGE, CHERAYAKKAPARAMPU,ANGADIPPURAM P.O., PERINTALAMANNA, MALAPPURAM. ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON FOR R THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Tr.P(C) No.195 of 2010 ==================================== Dated this the 29th day of October, 2010 O R D E R This petition is filed by the petitioner-wife seeking transfer of O.P. No.432 of 2010 from Family Court, Malappuram to Family Court, Nedumangad. That is a petition filed by the respondent- husband seeking divorce. Petitioner states that she is a resident of Kudappanakunnu, in Thiruvananthapuram District. It is stated that petitioner is staying at her paternal home at Kudappanakunnu and that she finds it difficult to travel around 400 kms from her place of residence to reach Family Court, Malappuram. Respondent has opposed the petition and contends that there is no reason to transfer the case and at any rate if the case is transferred to Nedumangad it will cause much inconvenience to him. 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 Tr.P(C) No.195 of 2010 -: 2 :- of course does not mean that inconvenience of the husband has to be ignored. It is not disputed that petitioner is staying in the paternal home at Kudappanakunnu in Thiruvananthapuram District. The distance from Malappuram is nearly 400 kms. She has to travel by train from Thiruvananthapuram to Tirur and then catch bus to reach Family Court at Malappuram. It will take two days for her to reach Malappuram and to return to her place of residence. Necessarily she has to be accompanied by some relatives which involves expenses also. No doubt it will cause some inconvenience to the respondent also who is a resident of Malappuram if the case is transferred out of that District. He has to travel by train to Thiruvananthapuram and catch bus to reach Family Court, Nedumangad. Considering the facts and circumstances I am satisfied that the comparative hardship is more on petitioner if the request for transfer is not allowed than the inconvenience that may be caused to the respondent if transfer is ordered. The inconvenience of the respondent can be reduced to some extent by directing the case to be transferred to Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. Hence I am inclined to allow this petition in that line. Resultantly, this petition is allowed in the following lines: Tr.P(C) No.195 of 2010 -: 3 :- (i) O.P. No.432 of 2010 pending in Family Court, Malappuram is withdrawn from that court and made over to Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. (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 for both parties. (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