IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 22ND NOVEMBER 2010 / 1ST AGRAHAYANA 1932 TR.P(C).NO. 321 OF 2010() -------------------------------------- OP.550/2010 OF FAMILY COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER: -------------------- P.C.GEETHA, AGED 43 YEARS, D/O.P.C.GOPALAN, FLAT NO.215(25), ARADHANA APARTMENTS, KAILAS NAGAR, KALPATHY, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.BABU SMT.RASHMI RAVINDRAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- S.RAMACHANDRAN @ RAMAN, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.V.SUBRAMANIAN, T.C. 40/1167 (1), KNRA - 10, NARAYANEEYAM, MANACAUD POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ADV. SRI.K.L.NARASIMHAN FOR R1 SRI.N.KRISHNA PRASAD FOR R1 THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Tr.P(C) No.321 of 2010 ==================================== Dated this the 22nd day of November, 2010 O R D E R This petition is filed by the wife seeking transfer of O.P. No.550 of 2010 from Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram to Family Court, Palakkad. That is a petition filed by the respondent- husband for divorce. It is stated that though petitioner is a resident of Kalpathi, in Palakkad District she is working in a College at Coimbatore and that she finds it difficult to travel all the distance to Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram to contest the case. 2. Application is opposed. It is contended that petitioner is now residing at Coimbatore. According to the learned counsel averments in the petition are not correct. 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. It is not disputed that permanent residence of petitioner-wife aged 43 years is at Tr.P(C) No.321 of 2010 -: 2 :- Kalpathi, in Palakkad District. She is now working in a College at Coimbatore. She has to travel all the distance from Palakkad to Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram which is more than 350 kms. It is true that respondent aged about 49 years is a resident of Manakkad in Thiruvananthapuram District. It is also stated that respondent has to look after his aged mother. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case the comparative hardship is more on the petitioner if the request for transfer is not allowed. Inconvenience that may be caused to the respondent by transferring the case to Family Court, Palakkad can be reduced to some extent by permitting him to appear through counsel except when his physical presence is required. I am inclined to allow this petition. Resultantly, this petition is allowed in the following lines: (i) O.P.No.550 of 2010 pending in Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram is withdrawn from that court and made over to Family Court, Palakkad. (ii) The transferor court while transmitting Tr.P(C) No.321 of 2010 -: 3 :- 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