IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 29TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 7TH ASWINA 1933 Tr.P(C).No. 158 of 2011() ------------------------- OP.144/2011 of FAMILY COURT, KASARGOD .................... PETITIONER/RESPONDENT ------------------------------- SMITHA A., AGED 26 YEARS, W/O.RATHEESH BABU AND D/O.LATE ANANTHAN GURUKKAL, SANTHOSH BHAVAN, ARUVAL, PORUNNANNUR VILLAGE, MANANTHAVADY TALUK, THARUVANA P.O., WAYANADU DISTRICT, PIN-670732. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW KURIAKOSE RESPONDENT/PETITIONER ------------------------- RATHEESH BABU V.M., AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.RAJAN, V.M.HOUSE, SUVARNAVALLY, PEROLE VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, PUTHARIYADUKKAM P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT - 671314 BY ADVS. SRI.V.R.REKESH SRI.SURESH KUMAR KODOTH SRI.V.R.REKESH THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: bka ...2 Tr.P(C).No. 158 of 2011() APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A - TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION IN O.P. NO. 144/2011 FILED BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, KASARGOD. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES - NIL TRUE COPY PS TO JUDGE bka THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Tr.P(C) No.158 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 29th day of September, 2011 O R D E R This petition is filed by the wife for transfer of O.P. No.144 of 2011 from the Family Court, Kasargod to the Family Court, Kalpetta. That is a petition filed by the respondent-husband for dissolution of marriage. Petitioner, aged 26 years, states that she is residing at Porunnannur Village, Mananthavady Taluk which is far away from Kasargod and she finds it difficult to transfer all the distance from her place of residence to Kasargod to contest the case. Learned counsel for petitioner in the above circumstances requested transfer of O.P. No.144 of 2011. 2. Petition is opposed by the learned counsel for respondent. In the counter affidavit it is stated that respondent is suffering from Cervical Spondylosis with neurological defects and sciatica for the past five years. It is also stated that he is advised to avoid long journey for the coming few months. Learned counsel submitted that in the circumstances, transfer of the case may not be allowed and at any rate the case may be transferred to some other Family Court convenient to both parties. O.P(C) No.158 of 2011 -: 2 :- 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. That of course does not mean that the inconvenience of the husband has to be ignored. 4. Respondent is a Music Teacher, according to him conducting classes in the locality. True that Annexure-I, Medical Certificate states about the illness pleaded by the respondent. But I must bear in mind that petitioner-wife is aged 26 years and she is required to travel to Kasargod to contest the case which is far away from her place of residence. She cannot travel alone. She has to be accompanied by somebody which involves huge expense also. Having regard to the circumstances stated I am inclined to think that the hardship is comparatively more on petitioner in case request for transfer is not allowed. The inconvenience of the respondent can be reduced by directing that he need only appear in the transferee court when his physical presence is required. If his examination in court is necessary, it could be done through commission. O.P(C) No.158 of 2011 -: 3 :- Resultantly, the Petition is allowed in the following lines: (a) O.P. No.144 of 2011 pending in Family Court, Kasargod is withdrawn from that court and made over to Family Court, Kalpetta 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 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. (d) If examination of the respondent in the case is necessary, it is open to him to O.P(C) No.158 of 2011 -: 4 :- request the Family Court to have his examination through commission. All pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv