IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH OCTOBER 2008 / 23RD ASWINA 1930 Tr.P(C).No. 216 of 2008() ------------------------- OPHMA.169/07 OF FAMILY COURT, KOTTARAKKARA OPHMA.601/08 of FAMILY COURT, ALAPPUZHA .................... PETITIONER ------------- PADMAKUMARI, AGED 32 YEARS, W/O. SURESHKUMAR, THEKKETHARAYIL VEEDU, ULAVUKKADU MURI, PALAMEL VILLAGE, MAVELIKARA TALUK BY ADV. SRI.A.SHAFEEK RESPONDENT --------------- SURESHKUMAR, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O. VAMADEVAN PILLAI, SINESH MATHIRAM, ANTHRUMANN MURI, KALAYAPURAM VILLAGE, KOTTARAKARA TALUK. ADV. SRI.V.N.ACHUTHA KURUP (SR.) SRI.B.S.SWATHY KUMAR SRI.K.HARILAL THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Tr.P(C) No. 216/08 ORDER ON IA Nos. 2022 & 2246/08 IN Tr.P(C) No.216/08 DISMISSED 15.10.08 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE. M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- Tr.P.(C). No. 216 OF 2008 --------------------- Dated this the 15th day of October, 2008 ORDER This transfer petition is filed by the petitioner/wife against the respondent/husband. The unfortunate couple are fighting and the husband to start with filed O.P. (HMV) No.169/07 before the Family Court, Kottarakara, for restitution of conjugal rights. The wife thereafter filed an application for maintenance as O.P. No.601/08 before the Family Court, Alappuzha, and the matter is still pending before that court. The wife has requested for transfer of the case filed by the husband on the grounds that there is nobody to support her and that she is having a 2 ½ year old child and that she is not having the financial resources. The husband would strongly oppose the application on the ground that it is on account of the recalcitrant attitude of the wife, the matrimonial dispute has started and that she has filed the application for maintenance only as a counter blast to the petition for restitution of conjugal rights. 2. I am conscious of the fact that the Supreme Court has held that women are misusing the liberal attitude given by the courts in filing transfer applications. The Supreme Court has cautioned that Tr.P.C. No.216/08 2 each case has to be considered on its merit. Now let me consider whether there are such sufficient grounds. 3. At the outset, the transfer petitioner is a lady who is having a 2 ½ year old child. The Family Court, Kottarakara, is situated well away from her residence at Mavelikara. It may be always difficult for ladies to carry a small child to attend the court. For that purpose, they necessarily require the assistance of an escort. So when the comparative hardship is weighed, the male will be in a better position to travel without the help of anybody. Here, the husband did not have the difficulty for the reason that the child is with the wife. So on a consideration of these materials, I find that the comparative hardship is more for the wife than the husband. Therefore the discretionary jurisdiction can be used to transfer the case. At the same time, it has also to be stated that the husband need not be put into unnecessary hardship by directing him to be present on each and every posting date. The Family Court can restrict his appearance for the limited purpose of conciliation, evidence and any such circumstances where the court feels his presence as necessary. Tr.P.C. No.216/08 3 Therefore, the transfer petition is disposed of by transferring O.P. (HMV) No.169/07, pending before the Family Court, Kottarakara, to the Family Court, Alappuzha, where O.P. 601/08 is pending. Before transfer, the factum of transfer be intimated to the petitioner in O.P. (HMV) No.169/07. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps Tr.P.C. No.216/08 4