IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 5TH OCTOBER 2010 / 13TH ASWINA 1932 Tr.P(C).No. 26 of 2010() ------------------------ MOP.169/2009 of FAMILY COURT, NEDUMANGAD .................... PETITIONER (S): ---------------------------- SREEJA @ LALU.V.L, D/O.LEELADEVI, AGED 33 YEARS, PULIKKADMANA, VALIYAKALUNGU, PARANDODE P.O., ARYANAD, NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 542. BY ADVS. SRI.V.G.ARUN, SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- ANANANDA KUMAR, S/O.BASKARAN PILLAI, AGED 34 YEARS, "SREENILAYAM", PUNJACODE, THENGARA, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Tr.P(C) No.26 of 2010 ==================================== Dated this the 05th day of October, 2010 O R D E R This petition is filed by the wife seeking transfer of O.P. No.169 of 2009 from Family Court, Palakkad to Family Court, Nedumangad. Petitioner wife-aged about 33 years is a resident of Aryanad, in Nedumangad. She filed M.C. No.172 of 2009 in Family Court, Nedumangad and obtained an order for maintenance against the respondent. Respondent also belonged to the same locality but he is now staying at Mannarcaud in Palakkad District. He filed O.P. No.169 of 2009 in Family Court, Palakkad for divorce. Petitioner seeks that case to be transferred to Family Court, Nedumangad. I heard learned counsel for petitioner and respondent. According to the learned counsel for respondent, petitioner and respondent were staying together at Mannarcaud and it is accordingly that the case was filed in the court having jurisdiction over that area. 2. Presently I am concerned with the question of convenience of parties. The Supreme Court in Sumitha Singh v. Tr.P(C) No.26 of 2010 -: 2 :- 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 of course does not mean that inconvenience of the husband has to be ignored. It is also not disputed that petitioner-wife is a permanent resident of Aryanad, in Nedumangad. It is not disputed that she obtained an order for maintenance from Family Court, Nedumangad in the year 2009. A further fact which is not disputed is that respondent also belongs to the same locality though presently he is staying in Mannarcaud whatever be the reason thereof. If the case continued at Palakkad the wife has to travel a long distance from her native place. She is working as a teacher in a private school at Nedumangad where her children also are studying. I am not persuaded to think that the respondent will be put to that much difficulty since permanent residence of respondent is also within the jurisdiction of Family Court, Nedumangad. In the circumstances I am inclined to allow this petition. Resultantly, the petition is allowed in the following lines: Tr.P(C) No.26 of 2010 -: 3 :- (i) O.P No.169 of 2009 pending in Family Court, Palakkad is withdrawn from that court and made over to Family Court, Nedumangad. (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 on both sides. (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