IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 22ND NOVEMBER 2011 / 1ST AGRAHAYANA 1933 Tr.P(C).No. 334 of 2011(H) ------------------------------------- OP(HMA) NO. 802/2011 of FAMILY COURT,KOLLAM .................... PETITIONER/RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------- SMITHA.M., T.C. 3/2551, PANAYIL VEEDU, MARAPALAM, PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.PIN- 695 004 BY ADV. SRI.M.BALAGOVINDAN SRI.T.K.ANANDA PADMANABHAN RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------------------------------ BIJUKUMAR.S., KAILAS BHAVAN, VELANKONAM, PUNUKKANNOOR CHERRY, PERUMPUZHA P.O., KOLLAM - 691 504. BY THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts TP(C)NO.334/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEX A COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 12/10/2010 ANNEX B COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30/12/2010. ANNEX C COPY OF THE APPEAL 3471/2011 BEFORE THE SESSIONS COURT, TRIVANDRUM DATED 2/7/2011. ANNEX D COPY OF THE OP(HMA) 802/2011 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT,KOLLAM DATED 01/7/2011. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO.JUDGE sts THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Tr.P(C) No.334 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 22nd day of November, 2011 O R D E R This petition is filed by the wife for transfer of O.P(HMA) No.802 of 2011 from the Family Court, Kollam to the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. Respondent-husband filed that petition for divorce. It is stated that petitioner, aged 29 years is residing at Pattom, in Thiruvananthapuram City and that she has to travel about 75 kms from her place of residence to reach Kollam to contest the case. It is also stated that petitioner has filed M.C. No.261 of 2011 in the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Thiruvananthapuram under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. Hence the request for transfer. 2. Respondent though served, has not appeared. 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 seen that petitioner is residing at Pattom, in Thiruvananthapuram City while respondent belongs to Perumpuzha, in Kollam District. Tr.P(C) No.334 of 2011 -: 2 :- In connection with M.C.No.261 of 2011 respondent has to come to Thiruvananthapuram to contest that case. If O.P(HMA) No.802 continued in the Family Court, Kollam, petitioner has to travel about 75 kms from her place of residence. She may have to be accompanied by somebody which involves much expense also. Having regard to the comparative hardship I am inclined to think that hardship is more on petitioner if request for transfer is not allowed. The inconvenience if any of 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(HMA) No.802 of 2011 pending in Family Court, Kollam is withdrawn from that court and made over to the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram 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. Tr.P(C) No.334 of 2011 -: 3 :- (c) It is made clear that respondent can appear in the transferee court through counsel except when his physical presence is necessary. All pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv