IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 23RD DECEMBER 2011 / 2ND POUSHA 1933 Tr.P(C).No. 138 of 2011() ------------------------------ OP.582/2011 of FAMILY COURT, THALASSERY .................... PETITIONER: --------------- P.M.JASEELA, AGED 19 YEARS,D/O.ABDUL RAZAK, PULLIYIL MADASSERY HOUSE,MELMURI P.O, MALAPPURAM. BY ADVS. SRI.E.S.M.KABEER SRI.ABDUL MAJEED.N RESPONDENT: ---------------- JUSTINE FRANCIS, S/O.FRANCIS THOMAS, OLATTUPURAM HOUSE,AMBAYATHODU P.O, KOTTIYOOR,THALASSERY,KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN SMT.A.R.PRAVITHA THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: DG Tr.P(C).No. 138 of 2011() APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE 1 : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(Crl) NO.480/10 (HABEAS CORPUS) DATED 10.01.2011. ANNEXURE 2 : COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MALAPPURAM BY THE PETITIONER DATED 16.01.2011. ANNEXURE 3 : COPY OF THE I.A.NO.388/2011 DATED 02.02.2011 FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO FILE DIVORCE PETITION BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM. ANNEXURE 3(a) : COPY OF THE DIVORCE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 27(d) OF THE SPECIAL MARRIAGE ACT, DATED 02.02.2011. ANNEXURE 4 : COPY OF THE PETITION O.P.NO.582/2011 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, THALASSERY FOR RESTITUTION OF CONJUGAL RIGHTS DATED 01.04.2011. ANNEXURE 5 : COPY OF THE NOTICE IN O.P. NO.582/2011 OF THE FAMILY COURT, THALASSERY DATED 01.04.2011. ANNEXURE 6 : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(Crl.) NO.35/2011 DATED 31.01.2011. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES - NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE DG THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Tr.P(C) No.138 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 23rd day of December, 2011 O R D E R This petition is filed by the wife requesting for a transfer of O.P. No.582 of 2011 from the Family Court, Thalassery to the Family Court, Malapuram. That is a petition filed by the respondent-husband for restitution of conjugal rights. Petitioner states that she has filed I.A. No.388 of 2011 along with an Original Petition in the Family Court, Malappuram seeking leave of that court to institute a petition for divorce. That application is pending. It is also stated that petitioner is aged 19 years, is residing at Melmuri, in Malappuram District and that she has to travel a long distance from her place of residence to Thalassery to contest the case. Hence the request for transfer. 2. Request for transfer is opposed by the respondent. It is contended that there is no sufficient ground made out to transfer the case. 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 Tr.P(C) No.138 of 2011 -: 2 :- that while considering request for transfer of matrimonial proceedings convenience of the wife has to be looked into. Petitioner is aged 19 years and is residing at Melmuri in Malappuram District. If the case is allowed to continue in the Family Court, Thalassery petitioner has to travel a long distance. Having regard to the circumstances stated I am inclined to think that comparative hardship is more on petitioner if request for transfer is not allowed. The inconvenience if any caused to the respondent can be reduced by directing that he can appear in the transferee court through counsel except when his physical presence is required. Resultantly, Transfer Petition is allowed as follows: (a) O.P. No.582 of 2011 pending in the Family Court, Thalassery is withdrawn from that court and made over to the Family Court, Malappuram for trial and disposal. (b) The transferor court while transmitting records of the case to the transferee court shall fix the date for appearance of parties Tr.P(C) No.138 of 2011 -: 3 :- in the transferee court with due intimation to the counsel on both sides. (c) It is made clear that except when physical presence of respondent in the transferee court is necessary, he can appear through counsel. All pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv