IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2011 / 28TH SRAVANA 1933 Tr.P(C).No. 231 of 2011() ----------------------------------- OP.5/2011 of FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD .................... PETITIONER (S): RESPONDENT ---------------------------------------------- IMBICHI BEEVI, AGED 22 YEARS, D/O.KOYA KUNHI THANGAL, PANAYATHIL HOUSE, MYTHRA P.O., OORNGATTIRI PANCHAYAT, AREACODE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.VENUGOPAL (1086/92) RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------------------------- KUNHI SEETHI KOYA THANGAL, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.LATE KUNHI KOYA THANGAL, ODAMPULLI PONMANICHINTAKATH HOUSE, CHATHANUR P.O., OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT- 679535. THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Tr.P(C) No.231 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 19th day of August, 2011 O R D E R Petitioner-wife filed O.P. No.568 of 2010 and M.C. No.580 of 2010 in Family Court, Malappuram against the respondent. He appeared in the said proceedings. Later those proceedings were dismissed for default. To restore O.P. No.568 of 2010, petitioner- wife has filed I.A. No.1334 of 2011 and that application is pending consideration in the said court. While so, respondent filed O.P. No.5 of 2011 in Family Court, Palakkad seeking custody of the minor child. Request in this proceeding is to transfer O.P. No.5 of 2011 to Family Court, Malappuram. Petitioner states that she is aged 22 years, residing at Areacode and she has to travel long distance from her place of residence to Family Court, Palakkad to contest the case. 2. Respondent-husband opposed the application contending that O.P. No.568 of 2010 filed in Family Court, Malappuram has already been dismissed and what is pending in that court is only an application for restoration. It is submitted that there is no ground for transfer. Tr.P(C) No.231 of 2011 -: 2 :- 3. Respondent aged 36 years is residing at Chathannur, in Ottappalam Taluk. It would appear from the submission of learned counsel on both sides that so far as respondent is concerned travelling distance from his place of residence to Family Court, Palakkad and Malappuram is almost the same. Hence transfer of the case to Family Court, Malappuram will not cause much inconvenience to the respondent. 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 that while considering request for transfer of matrimonial proceedings convenience of the wife has to be looked into. Having heard counsel on both sides I am inclined to think think that 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. Tr.P(C) No.231 of 2011 -: 3 :- Resultantly, the Petition is allowed in the following lines: (a) O.P. No.5 of 2011 pending in Family Court, Palakkad is withdrawn from that court and made over to Family Court, Malappuram 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. (c) Family Court, Malappuram shall ensure that O.P. No.5 of 2011 (transferred to it), I.A.No.1334 of 2011 in O.P. No.568 of 2010 and M.C. No.580 2010 (pending in that court) are posted as far as possible, on the same dates. (d) It is made clear that except when the Tr.P(C) No.231 of 2011 -: 4 :- 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