IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2010 / 28TH SRAVANA 1932 Tr.P(C).No. 242 of 2010() ------------------------- OP.591/2009 of FAMILY COURT,KOZHIKODE .................... PETITIONER/RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------- SAJITHA P.V., D/O.K.BALAN (LATE), AGED 27 YEARS, PUTHIYA VALAPPIL, MATHAMANGALAM P.O., PANCHAYATH OFFICE, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.AMARESAN RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------- HAREESH T., AGED 31 YEARS, S/O.ANANDAKRISHNAN, KOZHEMBURATH HOUSE, KOTTOOLLY, KOZHIKODE PIN 673001. THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Tr.P.(C) No.242 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of August, 2010. ORDER Respondent is served on this petition but he has not responded. 2. This petition is filed by the wife seeking transfer of O.P. No.591 of 2010 from Family Court, Kozhikode to Family Court, Kannur. That is a petition filed by the respondent/husband for restitution of conjugal rights. Petitioner/wife states that she is a resident of Mathamangalam in Kannur and that she has to travel about 200 kms. from her place of residence to reach Family Court, Kozhikode. Learned counsel states that petitioner's father is no more and there is nobody to accompany her to Family Court, Kozhikode. Respondent is a resident of Kottoolly in Kozhikode District. Hence the request for transfer. 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. True that does not mean that inconvenience if any of the husband need not be considered. It is seen that petitioner/wife who is aged about 27 years has to travel around 200 kms. to reach Family Court, Kozhikode to defend the case. Necessarily she has to be accompanied by some relatives which involves huge expenses. On a consideration of all relevant aspects I am Tr.P.(C) No.242/2010 2 persuaded to think that comparative hardship is more on the side of petitioner who is a young lady if the case continued at Family Court, Kozhikode than the hardship that may be caused to the respondent if the case is transferred to Family Court, Kannur. In the circumstances, I am inclined to allow this petition. Resultantly this petition is allowed in the following lines: i. O.P. No.591 of 2010 pending in Family Court, Kozhikode is withdrawn from that court and made over to Family Court, Kannur for trial and disposal. 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.1930 of 2010 will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks