IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 13TH JULY 2010 / 22ND ASHADHA 1932 TR.P(C).NO. 177 OF 2010() -------------------------------------- OP.187/2010 OF FAMILY COURT, THODUPUZHA .................... PETITIONER-RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------------- VIJAYALAKSHMI AMMA.R., WIFE OF GOVINDANKUTTY NAIR, AGED 57 YEARS, RESIDING AT III/23, REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE QUARTERS, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI-15. BY ADV. SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI SMT.SMITHA GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER:: ---------------------------------------------- M.N.GOVINDANKUTTY, S/O.T.K.NARAYANAN NAIR, RESIDING AT MUNIKUMPOLLOL HOUSE, ARIKUZHA KARA, MANAKADU VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK. THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Tr.P(C) No.177 of 2010 ==================================== Dated this the 13th day of July, 2010 O R D E R Respondent was served on this petition well in advance but he has not responded. I heard learned counsel for petitioner. 2. Request is made by petitioner-wife for transfer of O.P. No.187 of 2010 from Family Court, Thodupuzha to the Family Court, Ernakulam. That is a petition filed by the respondent- husband seeking divorce. It is stated that respondent subjected petitioner to mental and physical cruelty. She is a menial staff in the Passport Office at Ernakulam residing in the quarters allotted to her at Panampilly Nagar in Ernakulam City. Petitioner states that in O.P. No.187 of 2010 the address given is not that of residence of respondent, but that is the house address of his sister. She also states that she finds it difficult to travel all the distance from Ernakulam to Thodupuzha. According to the petitioner as respondent is always available at Ernakulam transfer of the case to Ernakulam will not cause any convenience to him. Tr.P(C) No.177 of 2010 -: 2 :- 3. I find from the address of respondent given in this petition that he is residing at Arikuzha Kara, Managkadu Village in Thoduphzha Taluk. 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 the inconvenience of the husband has to be ignored. In the present case petitioner is a menial staff in a Central Government Institution working and staying at Ernakulam. She is stated to be aged about 57 years. She has to travel all the distance from Ernakulam to Thodupuzha. She may have to take leave from her office every time. She has to suffer financial loss. The inconvenience that petitioner has to suffer if she is to contest the case at Thodupuzha outweighs the inconvenience that respondent may have to suffer if the case is transferred to Ernakulam. Having regard to all relevant aspects of the matter, I am inclined to allow the request of petitioner. Resultantly, petition is allowed in the following lines: (i) O.P. No.187 of 2010 pending in Family Court, Thodupuzha is withdrawn from that court and Tr.P(C) No.177 of 2010 -: 3 :- transferred to Family Court, Ernakulam. (ii) The transferor court while transmitting records of the case to the transferee court shall fix date for appearance of parties in the transferee court with due intimation to counsel for both parties. (iii) It is made clear that except when physical presence of respondent in court is necessary he can appear through counsel. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv