IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 6TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 15TH BHADRA 1932 Tr.P(C).No. 239 of 2010() ------------------------- OP(HMA).761/2010 of FAMILY COURT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM .................... PETITIONER(S): -------------------- SUMAN M.K., AGED 31, D/O.SARASWATHY, MURUKELIL HOUSE, NEAR MARSLIBA SCHOOL, VAIKOM. BY ADV. SRI.C.S.MANILAL SRI.S.NIDHEESH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- N.SATEESHKUMAR, S/O.S.NALINAKSHAN, BEENA NIVAS, NEAR VETTUROAD LEVEL CROSS, KANIYAPURAM, TRIVANDRUM. THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Tr.P.(C) No.239 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of September, 2010. ORDER Respondent though served remains absent in this petition. Heard counsel for petitioner. 2. This petition is filed by the wife seeking transfer of O.P.(HMA) No.761 of 2010 from Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram to Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor. That is a petition filed by the respondent/husband seeking divorce. Petitioner/wife is aged 31 years and belongs to Vaikom, in Kottayam District. She states that her parents are aged, paralysed and bed ridden and there is nobody to accompany her to Thiruvananthapuram. It is stated that the distance from her place of residence to Thiruvananthapuram is about 120 kms. Respondent belongs to Kaniyapuram, in Thiruvananthapuram District. In the circumstances transfer is requested for. 3. It is seen from Annexure-I (copy of O.P.(HMA) No.761 of 2010) that respondent also admits that petitioner's father is an old man, suffered fracture about five years back and is suffering from very severe suffocation and other ailments and is totally bed ridden for the past more than five years. According to the petitioner, her father is aged 78 years. It is seen that petitioner is residing far away from Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. According to the petitioner she has to travel about 120 kms. to contest the case filed by respondent in Tr.P.(C) No.239/2010 2 Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. 4. 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. True that does not mean that inconvenience if any of the husband need not be considered. 5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances I am persuaded to think that comparative hardship on petitioner is higher if request for transfer is not allowed than the hardship on respondent if the request for transfer is allowed. Hence I am inclined to allow this petition. Resultantly this petition is allowed in the following lines: i. O.P. (HMA) No.761 of 2010 pending in Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram is withdrawn from that court and made over to Family Court, Kottayam, at Ettumanoor for trial and disposal. Tr.P.(C) No.239/2010 3 ii. The transferor court shall, while transmitting records of the case to the transferee court fix 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 is required in the transferee court it is open to him to appear through counsel. I.A.No.1921 of 2010 will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks