IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 10TH DECEMBER 2010 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 Tr.P(C).No. 312 of 2010() ------------------------- OP(DIV.)714/2010 of FAMILY COURT,KOZHIKODE .................... PETITIONER(S): -------------------- SMT.CHITHRA, D/O.SUDHAKARAN NAIR, AGED 29 YEARS KARTHYAYANI, NORTH NADA, VAIKOM KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.A.NANDAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- MR.KISHORE KUMAR, AGED 31 YEARS D/O.KRISHNAKUMAR VARMA NAVANEETHA HOUSE, POTTAMMAL MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION LIMIT PALAZHY ROAD, KOZHIKODE. THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Tr.P.(C) No.312 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of December, 2010. ORDER This petition is filed by the wife aged 29 years, a resident of Vaikom in Kottayam District requesting transfer of O.P. No.714 of 2010 from Family court, Kozhikode to Family Court, Ettumanoor. That is a petition filed by the respondent, a resident of Pottammal in Kozhikode District seeking dissolution of marriage. Petitioner has filed O.P.(Div.) No.1038 of 2010 in Family Court, Ettumanoor. Petitioner states that she is unable to travel the long distance and that both the cases are to be tried in the same court. 2. Notice of this petition was served on the respondent but there is no response. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner. 3. Petitioner has already filed O.P.(Div.) No.1038 of 2010 in the Family Court, Ettumanoor seeking divorce. Petitioner/wife is aged 29 years and she has to travel the long distance from Vaikom to Kozhikode if O.P.No.714 of 2010 is continued to be in the Family Court, Kozhikode. 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. It is convenient to both sides Tr.P.(C) No.312/2010 2 that both the cases are tried and disposed of by the same court. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case I am inclined to think that comparative hardship is more on the petitioner/wife if the request for transfer is not allowed than the inconvenience that may be caused to the respondent/husband if the request is allowed. Considering the hardship of petitioner and the circumstances stated above, I am inclined to allow this petition. Resultantly this petition is allowed in the following lines: (i) O.P. No.714 of 2010 pending in Family Court, Kozhikode is withdrawn from that court and made over to Family Court, Ettumanoor for trial and disposal. (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) The transferee court shall ensure that O.P.No.714 of 2010 being transferred to that court and O.P.(Div.) No.1038 of 2010 pending in that court are posted on the same dates, as far as possible. Tr.P.(C) No.312/2010 3 (iv) It is made clear that except when physical presence of respondent in the transferee court is necessary he can appear through counsel. I.A.No.2502 of 2010 will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks