IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 23RD DECEMBER 2011 / 2ND POUSHA 1933 TR.P(C).NO. 425 OF 2011() ------------------------------------ OP.1441/2011 OF FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM PETITIONER/RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------- REKHA RAJESH, W/O.RAJESH, AGED 35 YEARS, RESIDING AT PULIMPARAMPU (SARIGA), PAZHAVEEDU P.O., PAZHAVEEDU VILLAGE, PAZHAVEEDU KARA, AMBALAPUZHA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR SMT.BHAVANA VELAYUDHAN SMT.T.J.SEEMA RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER -------------------------------------------- RAJESH R., S/O.RAMANKUTTY, AGED 38 YEARS, RESIDING AT KARUVALLITHARA HOUSE, THIRUVARPU VILLAGE, KILIROOR KARA, KANJIRAM P.O., KOTTAYAM TALUK, KOTTAYAM-686030. THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: TR.P(C) NO.425 OF 2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION OP.1441/2011 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Tr.P(C) No.425 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 23rd day of December, 2011 O R D E R Though respondent is served there is no response. 2. Petitioner-wife seeks transfer of O.P. No.1441 of 2011 from the Family Court, Kottayam, at Ettumanoor to the Family Court, Alapuzha. That is a petition filed by the respondent-husband for restitution of conjugal rights. 3. It is stated that petitioner, aged 35 years is residing at Pazhaveedu, in Alappuzha District and that her six year old child is suffering from congenital renal failure and undergoing continuous treatment. Petitioner is a Teacher in a School at Kalarcode in Alappuzha District. She finds it difficult to attend the child, do her work as a Teacher and to go to the Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor to contest the case. Hence it is requested the the case may be transferred to the Family Court, Alappuzha. 4. 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 Tr.P(C) No.425 of 2011 -: 2 :- that while considering request for transfer of matrimonial proceedings convenience of the wife has to be looked into. Having regard to the circumstances stated I am inclined to think that comparative hardship is more on petitioner if request for transfer is not allowed. True, it may cause some inconvenience to the respondent also which can be reduced by directing that he can appear in the transferee court through counsel except when his physical presence is required. Resultantly, Transfer Petition is allowed as follows: (a) O.P. No.1441 of 2011 pending in the Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor is withdrawn from that court and made over to the Family Court, Alappuzha for trial and disposal. (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. Tr.P(C) No.425 of 2011 -: 3 :- (c) 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