IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 25TH OCTOBER 2011 / 3RD KARTHIKA 1933 Tr.P(C).No. 269 of 2011() ------------------------------- OP.586/2010 of FAMILY COURT,THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER/RESPONDENT ------------------------------- ASWATHY, D/O.SASIDHARAN PILLAI, ASWATHY BHAVAN, PLAVARA VADAKKETHIL, KUREEPPUZHA (P.O), PERINADU, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.LIJU. M.P SRI.JOSEPH SEBASTIAN (KOLLAM) RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------------------ RAJU, S/O.LATE JANARDHANAN PILLAI, KUNNATHU HOUSE, CHAZHOOR P.O., CHAZHOOR VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 571. R1 BY ADVS. SRI.A.JAYASANKAR SRI.MANU GOVIND THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: svs TPC. NO. 269/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE A:COPY OF THE PETITION IN M.C. NO.30/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE FAMILY COURT, KOLLAM. ANNEXURE B:COPY OF THE PETITION IN O.P. NO.586/2010 ON THE FILE OF FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Tr.P.(C) No.269 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of October, 2011. ORDER This petition is filed by the wife requesting transfer of O.P.No.586 of 2010 from the Family Court, Thrissur to the Family Court, Kollam. That is a petition filed by the respondent-husband for restitution of conjugal rights. Petitioner has filed M.C.No.30 of 2011 before Family Court, Kollam claiming maintenance from the respondent. Petitioner states that she is residing at Perinadu, in Kollam District and that she has to travel the long distance to Thrissur to contest the case. It is also stated that there is nobody to accompany her . In the circumstances the request for transfer. 2. Petition is opposed by the respondent. Learned counsel for respondent contends that marriage between the parties was on 04.02.2010 and on 09.04.2010 respondent had to file O.P.No.586 of 2010 for restitution of conjugal rights. According to the respondent, petitioner insisted that respondent stood stay with her in her house at Kollam but respondent is not able to oblige as he is having a business at Thrissur. Learned counsel has also invited my attention to the circumstances under which respondent was (allegedly) compelled to file the petition within two weeks of the date of marriage. It is also stated that filing of M.C.No.30 of 2011 is a subsequent development only to coerce the respondent stay at Kollam. Tr.P(C)No.269/2011 2 3. I need not go into the issues that has surfaced between the parties in this proceeding. That is a matter which the Family Court concerned has to sort out as provided under law. Now I am concerned with the question whether request for transfer is allowable or not. 4. It is not disputed that M.C.No.30 of 2011 filed by the petitioner though subsequent to the filing of O.P.No.586 of 2010 is pending in the Family Court, Kollam. Respondent has not so far sought for transfer of that case to any other court for whatever reason it be. In otherwords, in connection with M.C.No.30 of 2011 respondent has to go to Kollam. I must bear in mind that petitioner, aged about 20 years is residing at Perinadu, in Kollam and that she has to travel the long distance to Thrissur to contest the case. Petitioner has to be accompanied by somebody which involves expense also. 5. 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 held that while considering the request for transfer of matrimonial proceedings convenience of the wife has to be looked into. True that does not mean that inconvenience if any of the opposite party need not be considered. 6. Having regard to the circumstances stated above, I am inclined to think that comparative hardship is more on petitioner if the request for transfer is not allowed. The inconvenience that may be caused to the respondent could be reduced by directing that he could appear in the Family Court, Kollam through counsel except when his physical presence is required. In the circumstances Tr.P(C)No.269/2011 3 stated, I am inclined to allow the request for transfer. Resultantly this petition is allowed as follows: (i) O.P.No.586 of 2010 pending in Family Court, Thrissur is withdrawn from that court and transferred to the Family Court, Kollam for trial and disposal. (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 for both parties. (iii) The transferee court shall post the cases - O.P.No.586 of 2010 (being transferred to that court) and M.C.No.30 of 2011 (pending in that court) as far as possible on the same dates. (iv) Respondent can appear in the transferee court through counsel except when his physical presence is required. I.A.No.1890 of 2011 will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks