IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH DECEMBER 2010 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 Tr.P(C).No. 188 of 2010() ------------------------------ OP.364/2010 of FAMILY COURT,KOLLAM .................... PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER ------------------------------------------ ANUJA, REMANAKAM,MELEAYATHIKUZHI, PARASSALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. SRI.G.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.K.SANEESH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER ----------------------------------- HANSH KRIAN,POOMKAVIL HOUSE, MULANKADAKAMCHERI,KOLLAM WEST VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691001. THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: svs/ THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Tr.P(C) No.188 of 2010 ==================================== Dated this the 15th day of December, 2010 O R D E R Since notice issued to the respondent was returned with endorsement ‘not known’, as per order of this Court notice was served on the counsel for respondent in the court below and counsel for petitioner has filed memo to that effect. That amounts to sufficient service of notice on the respondent under Rule 59 of the Rules of the High Court of Kerala. Hence service of notice on respondent is declared as sufficient. 2. This petition by wife is for transfer of O.P(HMA) No.364 of 2010 from Family Court, Kollam to Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. That is a petition filed by the respondent to annul the marriage. It is stated that petitioner is residing at Parassala along with her parents and she has to travel a long distance from her place of residence to Family Court, Kollam to contest the case. It is also stated that there is nobody to accompany her to Family Court, Kollam. 3. The Supreme Court in Sumitha Singh v. Kumar Sanjay and another (AIR 2002 SC 396) and Arti Rani v. Tr.P(C) No.188 of 2010 -: 2 :- 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. In O.P. No.364 of 2010 filed by the respondent what is alleged is that his consent for the marriage was obtained by suppressing that petitioner has mental infirmity. Of course that allegation is disputed by petitioner who contended that petitioner has acquired B.Ed. Degree. Fact remained that petitioner is a resident of Parassala which is further towards south of Thiruvananthapuram while the case is now pending in Family Court, Kollam. She has to travel a long distance from her place of residence to attend Family Court, Kollam. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case I am inclined to think that comparative hardship is more on petitioner in case transfer requested is not allowed than the inconvenience that may be caused to the respondent if transfer is allowed. Hence I am inclined to allow this petition. Resultantly, petition is disposed of in the following lines: (i) O.P(HMA) No.364 of 2010 pending in Family Court, Kollam is withdrawn from that court and made over to Family Court, Tr.P(C) No.188 of 2010 -: 3 :- Thiruvananthapuram. (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 on both sides. (iii) It is made clear that except when physical presence of respondent in the transferee court is necessary he can appear through counsel. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv