IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 22ND FEBRUARY 2011 / 3RD PHALGUNA 1932 RP.No. 99 of 2011() ---------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN TPC.276/2010 DATED 07/10/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/RESPONDENT ---------------------------------------------------- ANISH K.C., AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.CHANDRAMOHAN, KANNITTAPARAMBIL, CHANDANAKAVU, ALAPPUZHA, 688 001, REPRESENTED BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER CHANDRAMOHAN K.S., AGED 69, S/O.SUBRAHMANYA PILLAI, RESIDING AT -DO- -DO- BY ADV. SRI.R.PADMAKUMAR, SRI.R.T.PRADEEP. RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS -------------------------------------------- 1. SEEMA RADHAKRISHNAN ,D/O.RADHAKRISHNAN, AGED 30, KOTTARATHIL HOUSE, THODUPUZHA P.O., NOW WORKING AS STAFF NURSE 3633 NORTH 6TH AVENUE APARTMENT, B19, PHONIX STATE OF ARIZONA, U.S.A. REP.BY P/A. K.C.RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI, KOTTARATHIL HOUSE, THODUPUZHA. 2. K.C. RADHAKRISHNA PILLA, AGED 59 S/O.CHELLAPPAN PILLA, KOTTARATHIL HOUSE, THODUPUZHA P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT. 3. VANAJA RADHAKRISHNAN, W/O. RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI, KOTTARATHIL HOUSE, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/02/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- R.P.No.99 of 2011 in Tr.P.(C) No.276 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2011. ORDER This petition is for review of order dated October 07, 2010 in Tr.P.(C) No.276 of 2010. That petition was filed by the wife and her parents for transfer of O.P.(HMA) No.256 of 2010 from Family Court, Alappuzha to Family Court, Thodupuzha. When that petition was taken up for hearing there was no representation for petitioner (respondent in the Transfer Petition). This Court observed that petitioner is served but there is no response and allowed that petition on merit. That order is sought to be reviewed by the petitioner/husband represented by his power of attorney, his father on the ground that he was not heard at the time Transfer Petition was disposed of by order dated October 7, 2010 . It is stated in this petition that power of attorney holder of petitioner filed Vakkalath but the Registry insisted for production of original power of attorney. 2. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner on the application for review as well as his grievance in the matter of request for transfer made by respondents in Tr.P.(C) No.276 of 2010. Learned counsel submitted that the husband and wife are staying in the United States and hence both parties could not have any difficulty in attending Family Court, Alappuzha. It is pointed out that petitioner’s father, his power of attorney holder aged 68 years, finds it RP No.99/2011 2 difficult to go to Thodupuzha to contest the case. According to the learned counsel, since respondent No.1, wife has already obtained a divorce from a court in United States it is better that the parties settled the dispute and agreed for a divorce. 3. Assuming that for the reason above stated, petitioner could not be heard while the Transfer Petition (Civil) was disposed of, question is whether on the materials on record I should review the order allowing transfer of the case from Family Court, Alappuzha to Family Court, Thodupuzha. Respondent No.1, wife is aged about 30 years, is a permanent resident of Thodupuzha though she is now working in the United States as a nurse. Respondent No.2, her father is aged about 59 years and respondent No.3 is her mother, both residing at Thodupuzha. It was brought to my notice that the distance from Thodupuzha to Alappuzha is about 120 kms. and that it is difficult for the respondents, in particular respondent Nos.2 and 3 to travel upto Alappuzha and contest the case. As against that, difficulty expressed by petitioner is inconvenience of his father who is his power of attorney holder aged about 68 years. No material is produced to show that the power of attorney is not able to travel from his place of residence to Thodupuzha. No doubt, I must bear in mind that respondent No.2 is aged 59 years as against power of attorney holder of petitioner who is aged about 69 years. The Supreme Court in Sumitha Singh v. Kumar Sanjay and another (AIR 2002 SC 396) and Arti Rani v. Dharmendra RP No.99/2011 3 Kumar Gupta ((2008) 9 SCC 353) has held that in matrimonial proceedings when transfer is requested convenience of the wife has to be looked into. I am aware that it is not a inflexible rule. But there is no reason why that rule should not be applied on the facts of the case. It is also not as if petitioner cannot appoint some other able bodied person related to him as power of attorney. When the transfer petition was disposed of, I have made it clear that that except when physical presence of petitioner is needed in the transferee court, he can appear through counsel. That direction is sufficient to allay the grievance of petitioner. Having heard learned counsel for petitioner I do not find reason to review the order dated October 7, 2010 in Tr.P.(C) No.276 of 2010. Hence this petition is dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks