IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2011 / 31ST ASHADHA 1933 TR.P(C).NO. 184 OF 2011() ------------------------------------- TO TRANSFER OP.32/2011 FROM FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR TO FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM PETITIONER: ------------------- SAJITHA V.N., AGED 25 YEARS, D/O.NARAYANAN NAIR, VATTANATTU HOUSE, PANGARAPPILLY P.O., MULANTHURUTHY - 682314, ERNAKULAM DT. BY ADV. SMT.K.T.LILLY @ LILLY JAMES RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- SUDHEER P., AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.LATE MADHAVAN NAIR, PUTHUKULANGARA HOUSE, AATTORE, KUTTUR P.O., PIN - 680013, THRISSUR DISTRICT. THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Tr.P(C) No.184 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2011 O R D E R Respondent is served sufficiently early, but there is no response. 2. This petition is for transfer of O.P. No.32 of 20011 from Family Court, Thrissur to Family Court Ernakulam. That is a petition filed by the respondent-husband for restitution of conjugal rights. Petitioner has filed M.C. No.186 of 2011 in Family Court, Ernakulam claiming maintenance from the respondent. It is stated that petitioner is aged about 25 years and is residing at Mulamthuruthy. According to the petitioner, Family Court, Thrissur is 97 kms away from her place of residence. It is further stated that she has a child aged eleven months to look after. It is also stated that petitioner finds it difficult to travel all the distance from Mulamthuruthy to Thrissur to contest the case. Respondent aged 33 years is said to be working in the District Industries Centre, Thrissur. 3. The Supreme Court in Sumitha Singh v. Kumar Sanjay and another (AIR 2002 SC 396) and Arti Rani v. Tr.P(C) No.184 of 2011 -: 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. That of course does not mean that inconvenience of the husband has to be ignored. M.C. No.186 of 2011 filed by the petitioner is pending consideration in Family Court, Ernakulam. Respondent has not so far requested transfer of that case. Petitioner is a young lady aged about 28 years, she has to look after a child aged eleven months and she has to travel all the distance from her place of residence to Family Court, Thrissur to contest the case. Having regard to the circumstances stated I am inclined to think that the hardship is comparatively more on petitioner in case request for transfer is not allowed. The difficulty if any of respondent can be reduced by permitting him to appear in the transferee court through counsel except when his physical presence is required. Hence I am inclined to allow the petition. Resultantly, the Petition is allowed in the following lines: (a) O.P. No.32 of 2011 pending in Family Court, Thrissur is withdrawn from that court and made over to Family Court, Ernakulam Tr.P(C) No.184 of 2011 -: 3 :- for trial and disposal. (b) 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. (c) Family Court, Ernakulam shall ensure that O.P. No.32 of 2011 (transferred to it) and M.C.No.186 of 2011 (pending in that court) are posted as far as possible on the same dates. (d) It is made clear that except when physical presence of respondent in the transferee court is necessary, he can appear through counsel. All pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv