IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 6TH ASWINA 1933 Tr.P(C).No. 325 of 2011() ------------------------- OP.760/2011 of FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD ............... PETITIONERS / RESPONDENTS NO. 2 & 3 : ------------------------------------- 1. K.N. CHERIAN, AGED 61 YEARS, S/O. NINAN, KOCHUTHAZHATHU HOUSE ('ANUGRAHA'), PUZHAVATHU, CHANGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM. 2. MARY ANN VARGHESE, AGED 56 YEARS, W/O. K.N. CHERIAN, KOCHUTHAZHATHU HOUSE ('ANUGRAHA'), PUZHAVATHU, CHANGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY RESPONDENTS / PETITIONER & 1ST RESPONDENT : ------------------------------------------- 1. ROSHIN PIUS @ ROSAMMA, D/O. PIUS, KUZHITHOTTU HOUSE, KONGAD, PALAKKAD TALUK - 678 001. 2. AJESH K. CHERIAN, S/O. K.N. CHERIAN, KOCHUTHAZHATHU HOUSE ('ANUGRAHA'), PUZHAVATHU, CHANGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM - 686 101. BY THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- Tr.P(C).No. 325 of 2011() APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURE'S ANNEXURE I : CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER. ANNEXURE II : CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURE'S - NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Mn THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- Tr.P(C).No.325 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 28th day of September, 2011 ORDER This petition is filed by respondents 2 and 3 in O.P.No.760 of 2011 of the Family Court, Palakkad requesting to transfer that proceeding to the Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor on the ground of old age and illness. 2. The said original petition is filed by the first respondent, wife of second respondent aged about 27 years and a resident of Kongad, in Palakkad district for return of money and gold ornaments ..etc. It is stated that petitioners are aged 61 and 56 years, respectively and that they are ailing as revealed by Annexures A1 and A2. 3. Learned counsel requested that in the above circumstance, proceeding may be transferred to the Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor. 4. Second respondent, husband of the first respondent is working abroad. The Supreme Court in Sumitha Singh Vs. Sanjay Kumar & Another (AIR 2002 SC 396) and Arti Rani Lrs. Pinki Devi and Another Vs. Darmendra Kumar Gupta (2008(9) SCC 353) has stated that while considering the request Tr.P(C).No.325 of 2011 -: 2 :- for transfer in matrimonial proceedings convenience of the wife has to be looked into. True that does not mean that any inconvenience of others is not required to be considered. But I must bear in mind that if the case is transferred to Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor, the young lady aged 27 years has to travel all the distance from Kongad, an interior part of Palakkad district to Ettumanoor in Kottayam district. Either, she has to travel all the distance alone or be accompanied by somebody which involves expenses. On the other hand, if the case continued to be at Palakkad, petitioners can, if they so wished, appoint a power of attorney to conduct the case. 5. The inconvenience that may be caused to the petitioners in travelling to Palakkad can be reduced by directing that except when their physical presence is required they can appear through counsel and that if necessary they can request the Family Court to record their evidence if any, through commission and as the law permits. In the circumstances, I am not inclined to entertain this petition requesting transfer of the case to Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor. Resultantly this petition is dismissed. But, it is made clear that except when the physical presence of petitioners is required Tr.P(C).No.325 of 2011 -: 3 :- they can appear in the Family Court, Palakkad through counsel. In case their evidence is required to be recorded, it is open to them to request the Family Court to allow their evidence to be recorded by commission and as the law provides. Sd/- (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-