IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 12TH AUGUST 2011 / 21ST SRAVANA 1933 Tr.P(C).No. 135 of 2011() -------------------------------------- OPDIV.278/2010 of FAMILY COURT, ALAPPUZHA .................... PETITIONER (S): RESPONDENT --------------------------------------------- DHANYA MENACHERY,AGED 29 YEARS, D/O.M.J.BABY,MENACHERY HOUSE,NJARACKAL MURI, NJARACKAL.P.O,CHURCH ROAD,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.A.X.VARGHESE SRI.A.V.JOJO RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------------------------- SAJI THOMAS,AGED 42 YEARS,S/O.SAKARIA THOMAS,PLAMPARAMBIL HOUSE,PERNNUKKARA.P.O, ALA VILLAGE,CHENGANNUR TALUK,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-688001. THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss TPC. NO.135/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES A1:- COPY OF THE ORIGINAL PETITION (DIV.) 278/2010 OF THE FAMILY COURT, ALAPPUZHA. A2:- COPY OF THE SUMMONS DT.D 14.3.2011 IN OP(DIV) 278/2010 IN THE FAMILY COURT, ALAPPUZHA. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES NIL:- TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Tr.P.(C) No.135 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of August, 2011. ORDER Notice has been served on the counsel for respondent in the trial court on 09.08.2011 but, there is no response. Service on respondent is declared as sufficient in view of Rule 59 of the Kerala High Court Rules. 2. The request in this petition is for transfer of O.P.(Div.)No.278 of 2010 from Family Court, Alappuzha to Family Court, Ernakulam. It is stated that petitioner is aged 29 years and is a resident of Njarackal, in Ernakulam District. The respondent – husband aged about 42 years is a permanent resident of Ala Village, in Chengannur. Petitioner and respondent are working abroad. But, since the case is pending in Family Court, Alappuzha petitioner has to travel from her place of residence to Alappuzha when the case is taken up for enquiry. 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 held that while considering 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. Tr.P(C) No.135/2011 2 4. True that both parties are working abroad. But, petitioner - wife is aged about 29 years and whenever she comes to her native place in connecton with the case she has to travel the long distance to Alappuzha. Somebody may have to accompany her which involves expense also. Having regard to these circumstances, I am inclined to think that comparative hardship is more on petitioner if the request for transfer is not allowed. The inconvenience if any of respondent could be reduced by directing that he need appear in Family Court, Ernakulam only when his physical presence is required. In the circumstances I am inclined to allow the request for transfer. Resultantly this petition is allowed as follows: (i) O.P.(Div.)No.278 of 2010 pending in Family Court, Alappuzha is withdrawn from that court and transferred to Family Court, Ernakulam for trial and disposal. (ii) The transferor court while transmitting records of the case to the transferee court shall fix date for appearance of parties in the transferee court with due intimation to the counsel for both parties. Tr.P(C) No.135/2011 3 (iii) Respondent can appear in the transferee court through counsel except when his physical presence is required. I.A.No.1028 of 2011 will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks