IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH AUGUST 2011 / 2ND BHADRA 1933 TR.P(C).NO. 241 OF 2011() ------------------------------------ OP.1693/2010 OF FAMILY COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER: -------------------- KARTHIKA NAIR, AGED 44 YEARS, D/O. LATE S.T. NAIR, RESIDING AT MUTTUNGAL HOUSE, OPP. ANISH DRIVING SCHOOL, KOTTAPURAM, ALANGAD.P.O, ERNAKULAM BY ADV. SMT.LEKHA SURESH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR @ GOPAL, AGED 46, S/O. LATE K. PADMANABHA PILLAI,NANDANAM, PRAVACHAMBALAM, KUNDUMANOOR, NEMOM.P.O, TRIVANDRUM,NOW WORKING AS SENIOR SALES MANAGER, SANADI FOUNTAIN & ACQUA PROJECT INTD.PVT.LTD., V/79 A,ATHANI.P.O,NEDUMBASSERI,ERNAKULAM-683585. ADV. SMT.K.GIRIJA FOR R1 THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Tr.P(C) No.241 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 24th day of August, 2011 O R D E R This petition is filed by the wife seeking transfer of O.P. No. 1693 of 2010 from Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram to Family Court, Ernakulam. That is a petition filed by the respondent- husband for dissolution of marriage. Petitioner-wife has filed M.C. No.41 of 2011 seeking maintenance from the respondent which is pending in Family Court, Ernakulam. Petitioner, aged 44 years is a resident of Alangad in Ernakulam. Respondent belongs to Thiruvananthapuram but is working at Athani, in Ernakulam District. In the circumstances the request for transfer on the ground that if the case continued to be in Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram, petitioner has to travel all the distance from her place of resident to that court, to contest the case. 2. Petition is opposed by the respondent. Learned counsel submitted that though he is working at Athani, he is permanently residing at Thiruvananthapuram. 3. The Supreme Court in Sumitha Singh v. Kumar Sanjay and another (AIR 2002 SC 396) and Arti Rani v. Tr.P(C) No.241 of 2011 -: 2 :- 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 not disputed that MC No.41 of 2011 is pending in Family Court, Ernakulam. No request is so far made by the respondent to transfer that case to Thiruvananthapuram on any ground. Having regard to the circumstances stated I am inclined to think that the comparative hardship is more on petitioner if the request for transfer is not allowed. The inconvenience that may be caused to respondent can be reduced by permitting him to appear in the transferee court through counsel except when his physical presence is required. Hence I am inclined to allow the petition. Resultantly, the Petition is allowed in the following lines: (a) O.P. No.1693 of 2010 pending in Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram is withdrawn from that court and made over to Family Court, Ernakulam for trial and disposal. Tr.P(C) No.241 of 2011 -: 3 :- (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) Family Court, Ernakulam shall ensure that O.P. No.1693 of 2010 (transferred to it) and M.C. No.41 of 2011 (pending in that court) are posted as far as possible on the same dates. (d) 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