IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH JULY 2011 / 22ND ASHADHA 1933 Tr.P(C).No. 319 of 2010 -------------------------------- [FOR TRANSFER OF O.P(DIVORCE).332/2010 FROM FAMILY COURT,THRISSUR TO FAMILY COURT ALAPUZHA WITH CAMP SITTING AT CHENGANNUR] .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- VEENA PEETHAMBARAN, PADINJETTATHIL VEEDU, KEEZCHERRIMEL, CHENGANNUR VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, SRI.C.R.REGHUNATHAN. RESPONDENT: ---------------------- ULLAS, S/O.GOVINDIN, VATTATHITHU VEEDU (PARAVATHI SADANAM), KUTTAMPEROOR, MANNAR, CHENGANNUR TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PRESENT ADDRESS SHOWN BY HIM C/O.PARAYIL SUBASH PULLAGHU DESOM, PULLAZHY VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN – 680 012. BY THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: TR.P.(C).NO.319/2010: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' ANNEXURE: ANNEXURE-I: COPY OF THE NOTICE IN O.P(DIVORCE)332/2010 PENDING BEFORE FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR WITH THE POSTAL COVER. RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- Tr.P(C).No.319 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 13th day of July, 2011 ORDER Notice to the respondent is returned as unclaimed. Under Rule 51(2) of the Kerala High Court Rules in such situation Court shall declare that notice has been duly served on the respondent. Hence it is declared that respondent has been duly served on this petition. 2. Request made by the petitioner/wife is to transfer O.P (Div).No.332 of 2010 of the Family Court, Thrissur to Family Court, Alappuzha to be tried at its camp sitting at Chengannur. That original petition was filed by the respondent seeking divorce. Petitioner states that herself and child aged one year are staying with her father at Keezcherrimel, in Chengannur village and that it is difficult for her to travel all the distance from that place to Thrissur. 3. The Supreme Court in Sumitha Singh Vs. Sanjay Kumar & Another (AIR 2002 SC 396) and Arti Rani Lrs. Pinki Devi and Another Vs. Darmendra Kumar Gupta (2008 (9) SCC 353) has stated that while considering request for transfer in matrimonial proceedings convenience of the wife has Tr.P(C).No.319 of 2010 -: 2 :- to be looked into. Petitioner is aged about 29 years (as seen from her affidavit). She is now residing with her one year old child along with her father at Keezcherrimel, in Chengannur village. Respondent/husband is a resident of Kuttamperoor, in Chengannur taluk but his present address is shown as at Pullazhu Desam, in Thrissur District. Petitioner has to travel all the distance from her place of residence to Thrissur. If the case is transferred to Alappuzha it is convenient for petitioner who is a young lady. Having considered the difficulties of both sides I am inclined to think that comparative hardship is more on the petitioner. Hence I am inclined to allow the petition. Resultantly this petition is allowed in the following lines: (i) O.P(Div).No.332 of 2010 pending in Family Court, Thrissur is withdrawn from that Court and made over to Family Court, Alappuzha. The transferee Court shall decide whether the case is to be taken up in the camp Court at Chengannur. (ii) The transferor court shall transmit records of the case to the transferee court with due intimation to the counsel on both sides as to the date of appearance in the transferee court. (iii) It is made clear that except when physical presence of respondent is necessary it is open to him to appear through counsel in the transferee court. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-