IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 9TH JANUARY 2009 / 19TH POUSHA 1930 Tr.P(C).No.334 of 2008 ---------------------------- OP.581/2007 of FAMILY COURT,KOZHIKODE .................... PETITIONER/RESPONDENT IN THE O.P.581/07 & PETITIONER IN O.P.825/08 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- INDULEKHA , AGED 29, D/O. C.P. GOVINDANKUTTY, FLAT NO. 8D, CHOICE TOWERS, MANORAMA JUNCTION, KOCHI. BY ADV. SRI.A.RANJITH NARAYANAN RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN THE O.P.581/07 AND RESPONDENT IN O.P.825/08: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DINESAN,AGED 41, S/O. LATE NARAYANAN - NAIR, MUTHUVATTU HOUSE, ULLIYERI P.O., KOZHIKODE. ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN FOR R1 THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.P.BALACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------------------ Tr. P. C. No.334 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 9th day of January, 2009 ORDER The petitioner is the wife of the respondent. The respondent filed O.P.581/07 against the petitioner before the Family Court, Kozhikode for divorce and the petitioner herself filed O.P.825/08 on the file of the Family Court, Kozhikode for getting back the gold ornaments belonging to her from the respondent. She has sought for transfer of the case to the Family Court, Ernakulam on the ground that she is employed in the HDFC Bank, Willington Branch, Ernakulam; that the respondent is protracting the case by seeking frequent adjournments for the purpose of harassing and intimidating the petitioner and however, she finds it extremely difficult to go and contest the case at Calicut as the respondent and his henchmen are Tr. P. C. No.334 of 2008 -2- deliberately creating nuisance in order to harass her and insult her among the public. It is also submitted that the petitioner is settled at Ernakulam and that the comparative hardship that may be experienced by the respondent will not parallel the hardship that is being experienced by the petitioner. 2. Counsel for the respondent vehemently opposes the transfer relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Anindita Das v. Srijit Das (2006 (9) SCC, 197) contending that the Apex Court has cautioned that merely on the ground that the wife seeks for a transfer, it should not be viewed leniently as very often the leniency so extended is misused and taken advantage of by women. 3. In the said case, transfer petition was filed by the wife on the ground of her difficulty to attend the court at Delhi as she was having a child of six years, is having no Tr. P. C. No.334 of 2008 -3- source of income and is not keeping good health. The Apex Court observed that the petitioner therein was having grand parents available to look after the child and the respondent/husband was willing to bear all expenses for travel and stay of the petitioner and her companion for every visit to attend court at Delhi and the petitioner therein had no answer when confronted with such offers except that she was not keeping good health. It was in that circumstance that the Apex Court made the above observations and disallowed transfer observing that the petitioner/wife can apply for exemption from attending court at Delhi on any particular date and the court will consider the same on merits and that no reason exists for a transfer. 4. The circumstances available in this case are not akin to that of the case Tr. P. C. No.334 of 2008 -4- considered by the Apex Court. There is absolutely no merit in the objection stated before me by the counsel for the respondent. 5. In the result, allowing this transfer petition, I order that O.P.581/07 as also O.P.825/08 pending before the Family Court, Kozhikode shall stand transferred to the Family Court, Ernakulam. This Transfer Petition thus, stands allowed. K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JUDGE kns/-