IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 27TH OCTOBER 2011 / 5TH KARTHIKA 1933 Tr.P(C).No. 87 of 2011() ------------------------ OP.1281/2010 of FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM TO FAMILY COURT, THIRUVALLA. .................... PETITIONER: ----------------------- LEKHA, D/O.CHANDRASHEKERAN NAIR, AGED 26 YEARS, PUTHEDATHU HOUSE, PULLAD P.O., KOIPURAM VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.ABRAHAM SAMSON, SMT.LOVELY SAMSON. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- PONNATTIL AJAYAKUMAR, S/O.SANKUNNY, AGED 34, PONNATTIL HOUSE, RAYIRAMANGALAM AMSOM, THANNOR P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 676 121. THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss Tr.P(C) NO.87/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEX.A1: COPY OF THE NOTICE IN O.P.NO.1281/2010 DTD. 25/01/2011 OF THE FAMILY COURT AT MALAPPURAM. ANNEX.A2: COPY OF THE PETITION AS O.P.NO.1281/2010 DTD. 20/12/2010 OF THE FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Tr.P.(C) No.87 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of October, 2011. ORDER Respondent is served. 2. This petition is filed by the wife seeking transfer of O.P.No.1281 of 2010 from the Family Court, Malappuram to the Family Court, Thiruvalla. That is a petition filed by the respondent-husband for restitution of conjugal rights. It is stated in the petition that petitioner, aged about 26 years is residing at Pullad, in Thiruvalla Taluk, her father is suffering chronic Geriatric ailments, he is paralysed and that the mother of the petitioner has to take care of him. Petitioner has a one year old child to be looked after. There is nobody to accompany petitioner to Malappuram and she has to travel the long distance leaving behind or taking with her the child aged one year which causes much inconvenience to her. 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 the request for transfer of matrimonial proceedings convenience of the wife has to be looked into. 4. Respondent has not responded in spite of service of notice. It is seen that petitioner is residing at Pullad, in Thiruvalla Taluk. She has to travel the long distance to contest the case. She has to either go by train upto Tirur and reach Malappuram by bus or travel all the distance from Thiruvalla to Tr.P(C)No.87/2011 2 Malappuram by bus. That will certainly caused inconvenience to her. Having regard to the circumstances stated above, I am inclined to think that comparative hardship is more on petitioner if the request for transfer is not allowed. The inconvenience that may be caused to the respondent could be reduced by directing that he need appear in the Family Court, Thiruvalla only when his physical presence is required. I am inclined to allow the request for transfer. Resultantly this petition is allowed as follows: (i) O.P.No.1281 of 2010 pending in the Family Court, Malappuram is withdrawn from that court and transferred to the Family Court, Thiruvalla for trial and disposal. (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 for both parties. (iii) Respondent can appear in the transferee court through counsel except when his physical presence is required. I.A.Nos.626 of 2011 and 2440 of 2011 will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks