IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH JULY 2011 / 5TH SRAVANA 1933 TR.P(C).NO. 187 OF 2011() ------------------------------------- TRANSFER OF OP.332/2011 FROM FAMILY COURT, KOZHIKODE TO FAMILY COURT KOTTAYAM AT ETTUMANOOR .................... PETITIONER/RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------- SANDHYA GEORGE, D/O.N.T.GEOERGE, NJONGUNIYIL, S.N.D.P.ROAD, NEERIKKADU P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 564. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------- M.K.RAGESH, S/O.M.K.PADMANABHAN, `RESHMI', 34/359, MALAPARAMBU P.O., KOZHIKODE-9, (NADAKAVU POLICE STATION LIMITS). ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Tr.P(C) No.187 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 27th day of July, 2011 O R D E R Petitioner-wife seeks transfer of O.P. No.332 of 2011 from Family Court, Kozhikode to Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor. That is a petition filed by the respondent-husband for dissolution of marriage. Petitioner has filed M.C. No.199 of 2011 in Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor claiming maintenance from the respondent which is pending in that Court. Petitioner is staying at Neerikkadu, in Kottayam District which is far away from Family Court, Kozhikode with her aged and ailing parents and she finds it difficult to travel all the distance from her place of residence to that court. 2. Petition is opposed by the respondent. Learned counsel for respondent submitted that parties were staying at Kozhikode and while so, petitioner left the company of respondent with the children. 3. 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 Tr.P(C) No.187 of 2011 -: 2 :- 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 petitioner is now residing at Neerikkadu which is far away from Family Court, Kozhikode where she has to go to contest O.P. No.332 of 2011. Petitioner says that there is nobody to accompany her to Family Court, Kozhikode. Having regard to the circumstances stated I am inclined to think that the hardship is comparatively more on petitioner in case request for transfer is not allowed. The inconvenience that may be caused to the 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.332 of 2011 pending in Family Court, Kozhikode is withdrawn from that court and made over to Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor for trial and disposal. Tr.P(C) No.187 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, Kottayam at Ettumanoor shall ensure that O.P. No.332 of 2011 (transferred to it) and M.C. No.199 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