IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2010 / 24TH ASHADHA 1932 Tr.P(C).No. 181 of 2010() ------------------------- OP.390/2010 of FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM .................... PETITIONER/RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------- A.P.JYOTHI, D/O.A.P.DAMODARAN, AGED 34 YEARS, PANAKKADAN HOUSE, PONNOL P.O., THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------- A.P.BALAKRISHNAN, S/O.AYYAPPAN, AGED 46 YEARS, ATHIPANAMBATHU HOUSE, CHELEMBRA P.O., KAKKANCHERY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-673 634. ADV. SRI.P.VENUGOPAL (1086/92) THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Tr.P.(C) No.181 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of July, 2010. ORDER This petition is filed by the wife seeking transfer of O.P. No.390 of 2010 from Family Court, Malappuram to Family Court, Kannur. That is a petition filed by respondent/husband for divorce on various grounds including that petitioner/wife has some mental deficiency. Petitioner denies that allegation and states that she is a resident of Thalassery in Kannur District and that she has to travel around 200 kms. to reach Family Court, Malappuram. It involves much hardship, inconvenience and huge expenses for her. In the circumstances she has requested for transfer. 2. Petition is opposed by the respondent/husband. Learned counsel contends that respondent though is aged about 46 years is a chronic heart patient and that he may not be compelled to travel whole distance from Chelambra where he is residing to Kannur. 3. I have considered the rival contentions. Petitioner has denied the allegation regarding mental deficiency. It is true that respondent has a contention that he is a heart patient as learned counsel for respondent states. But this is not admitted by petitioner who maintains that such a statement is made only for the purpose of defeating this application. Tr.P.(C) No.181/2010 2 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. It is not disputed that petitioner is a resident of Thalassery and if the case continues at Family Court, Malappuram she has to travel about 200 kms. Even if she comes by train from Thalassery to Kozhikode, from there she has to go to Malappuram by bus which itself is far away from Kozhikode. Petitioner is aged about 34 years and normally, some relative of her has to accompany her. That involves huge expenses also. Respondent is a resident of Chelambra and it is more easy for him to come to Kozhikde or other nearby railway station and reach Kannur by train. The inconvenience that he may suffer can be solved by directing that except when his physical presence is required such as for recording evidence, etc. he can appear through counsel. 5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering all relevant aspects I am inclined to allow this petition. Resultantly this petition is allowed in the following lines: Tr.P.(C) No.181/2010 3 i. O.P. No.390 of 2010 pending in Family Court, Malappuram is withdrawn from that court and made over to Family Court, Kannur. ii. It is made clear that except when the physical presence of respondent is required in the transferee court it is open to him to appear through counsel. iii. The transferor court shall, while transmitting records of the case to the transferee court fix the date for appearance of parties in the transferee court with due intimation to the counsel on both sides. I.A.No.1447 of 2010 will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks