IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 29TH AUGUST 2011 / 7TH BHADRA 1933 TR.P(C).NO. 156 OF 2011() ------------------------------------- OP.325/2010 OF FAMILY COURT, KASARAGOD .................... PETITIONER: -------------------- DR.DEEPA PUSHPANGADAN,41 YEARS, W/O.DAMODARAN, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT UNIT 2/2, GNOILYA STREET, ALICE SPRINGS, NT 0870, AUSTRALIA, PERMANENT RESIDENT OF IREDA HOUSE, PERINGOTTUKARA, VADAKKUMURI, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, PUSHPANGADAN, AGED 76 YEARS, S/O.RAMU, IREDA HOUSE PERINGOTTUKARA,VADAKKUMURI,THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- DR.DAMODARAN, S/O.AMBUNCHI, AGED 46 YEARS, KIZHAKKEKKARA, PALLIKKERE P.O., KOOOKAN VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT – 671 120. ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU FOR R1 SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI FOR R1 SMT.DHANYA CHANDRAN FOR R1 SMT.DIVYA CHANDRAN FOR R1 THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: TR.P(C) NO.156 OF 2011 APPENDIX --------------- PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: ---------------------------------- EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.8.2010 IN W.P(C) NO.20773 OF 2010. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT IN O.P. NO.325 OF 2010 OF THE FAMILY COURT, KASARGOD. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: ----------------------------------- NIL TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Tr.P(C) No.156 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 29th day of August, 2011 O R D E R This petition is filed by the wife seeking transfer of O.P. No.325 of 2010 from Family Court, Kasargod to Family Court, Thrissur. That is a petition filed by the respondent-husband for restitution of conjugal rights. Petitioner states that herself and family are permanently residing at Vadakkumuri, in Thrissur District. It is submitted that petitioner is represented by her father aged 76 years who finds it difficult to travel all the distance from his place of residence to Kasargod to conduct the case. Petitioner when, she come down to her native place to conduct the case also will find it difficult to travel all the distance. Hence the request for transfer. 2. Since it was submitted that there was some possibility of a settlement between parties, this petition was kept pending for some time. But it appears that by now the settlement is not reached. Hence I am disposing of this petition. Learned counsel contended that if the case continued to be at Family Court, Kasargod petitioner and her aged father have to travel about 300 kms to reach that place to conduct the case. Tr.P(C) No.156 of 2011 -: 2 :- 3. Learned counsel for respondent while opposing the petition submitted that if concern is regarding the difficulty of Power of Attorney Holder, it is possible for petitioner to appoint some younger person as her Power of Attorney Holder. It is also submitted that so far as petitioner is concerned, she is working in Australia. 4. Assuming that petitioner is working in Australia she has to come down to her native place to contest the case. Having come down to her native place, she has to travel all the distance from her place of residence to Kasargod. Necessarily she has to be accompanied by somebody. 5. 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 inconvenience of the husband has to be ignored. If case is continued in Family Court, Kasargod petitioner and/or her aged father has to travel about 300 kms to reach that Court to contest the case. Having regard to the circumstances stated I am inclined to think that comparative Tr.P(C) No.156 of 2011 -: 3 :- hardship is more on petitioner if the request for transfer is not allowed. The inconvenience that may be caused to the respondent can be reduced by permitting him to appear in the transferee court through counsel except when his physical presence is required. Hence I am inclined to allow the petition. Resultantly, the Petition is allowed as follows: (a) O.P. No.325 of 2010 pending in Family Court, Kasargod is withdrawn from that court and made over to Family Court, Thrissur 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 the respondent in the Tr.P(C) No.156 of 2011 -: 4 :- transferee court is necessary, he can appear through counsel. All pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv