IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 5TH OCTOBER 2010 / 13TH ASWINA 1932 TR.P(C).NO. 183 OF 2010() --------------------------------------- (O.P(DIV.) NO.39 OF 2010, FAMILY COURT, THIRUVALLA PETITIONER: -------------------- JOYCEE MICHAEL,D/O.O.K.MICHAEL, AGED 52 YEARS,WORKING AS TEACHER,HOLY FAMILY COLLEGE,DHARMADAM,RESIDING AT ZION,DHARMADOM, AMSOM DESOM,P.O.DHARMADAM,PIN-670106,THALASSERY TALUK,KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.SURENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- A.G.FRANK OLIVER,S/O.LATE A.K.GEORGE, AGED 57 YEARS,WORKING AS MANAGER IN SYNDICATE BANK RESIDING AT ZION,ANAKUZHIYIL ETTICHUVADU,RANNI, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT,PIN-689672. THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Tr.P(C) No.183 of 2010 ==================================== Dated this the 05th day of October, 2010 O R D E R Respondent is served on this petition but there is no response. Heard learned counsel for petitioner. 2. Petitioner-wife seeks transfer of O.P(Div.) No.39 of 2010 from Family Court, Thiruvalla to Family Court, Kannur. That is a petition filed by the respondent-husband seeking divorce. Complaint of petitioner-wife is that she is residing at Dharmadom, near Thalassery from 1987 onwards, has three children, two of them are studying at Thalassery and she finds it difficult to travel all the distance from Dharmadom to Thiruvalla. In the circumstances she requests for transfer of the case. 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 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. As seen from the address of respondent he is a resident Tr.P(C) No.183 of 2010 -: 2 :- of Ranni, in Pathanamthitta District while petitioner as stated above resides at Dharmadom in Thalassery. The distance from place of residence of petitioner to Family Court, Thiruvalla is around 350 kms. That means petitioner has to travel a long distance to come to Family Court, Thiruvalla to contest the case. Moreover she has three children, two of them are studying at Thalassery. If she is to appear in Family Court, Thiruvalla she has to be accompanied by some relatives which involves expense also. They may even have to stay over night at Thiruvalla. Having considered the comparative hardship that parties have to suffer I am satisfied that the hardship which petitioner would have to suffer if the case is not transferred outweighs the hardship respondent has to suffer if transfer is allowed. The difficulty that may be caused to the respondent can be reduced by permitting him to appear through counsel except when his physical presence is not required. Hence I am inclined to allow the petition. Resultantly, the petition is allowed in the following lines: (i) O.P(Div.) No.39 of 2010 pending in Tr.P(C) No.183 of 2010 -: 3 :- Family Court, Thiruvalla is withdrawn from that court and made over to Family Court, Kannur. (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