IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 27TH MAGHA 1932 Tr.P(C).No. 20 of 2011 TO TRANSFER OP(DIV.)NO.1104/2010 FROM THE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVALLA TO THE FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM. PETITIONER -------------------- NIMY PAUL,D/O.M.V.POULOSE, MENACHERRY HOUSE, JOSPURAM, ANGAMALY VILLAGE, ANGAMALY P.O., ERNAKUALM DISTRICT, PIN-683572 BY ADV. SRI.WILSON URMESE RESPONDENT: --------------- JITHISH C.GEORGE, S/O.K.C.GEORGE, NEDIYAKALAYIL KANJIRAM NILKUNNATHIL, OONNUKAL P.O.,PANNIKUZHI MURI, CHENNEERKARA VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT,PIN-689647 ADV. SRI.MVS.NAMPOOTHIRY THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ Tr.P.(C). NO. 20 OF 2011 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 16th day of February, 2011 O R D E R The petitioner is the wife of the respondent. There is considerable dispute as to the date of marriage and the place where the marriage took place. The petitioner and the respondent were in love. At that time, alleging that the respondent was illegally detained by his parents, the petitioner filed a Habeas Corpus Petition before this Court. The parties appeared before Court. The petitioner and the respondent agreed to marry. Thereafter the marriage took place. According to the petitioner, the marriage was at Angamaly. Whereas, according to the respondent, the marriage was at Chenneerkara, Pathanamthitta District. It is not necessary to resolve that dispute in this Transfer Petition. 2. The respondent filed O.P.(Div.) No.1104 of 2010 before the Family Court, Thiruvalla for divorce. That case is pending. Tr.P.(C) NO.20 OF 2011 :: 2 :: 3. The prayer in this Transfer Petition is to transfer O.P.(Div.) No.1104 of 2010 from the Family Court, Thiruvalla to the Family Court, Ernakulam. The petitioner is residing at Angamaly. It is stated that if the petitioner is compelled to go to Thiruvalla and attend the Family Court there, she would be put to great hardship. It is stated that the petitioner is unemployed now, though she was working earlier as a nurse at Amala Hospital, Thrissur. According to the respondent/husband, the petitioner was dismissed from Amala Hospital, Thrissur. Whatever may be the reason, the petitioner has no job now. The respondent is a Physiotherapist. It is stated that the respondent met the petitioner at Thrissur and they fell in love. The activities in connection with love were admittedly at Thrissur. 4. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the hardship that would be caused to the petitioner if she is compelled to attend the Family Court, Thiruvalla would be greater than the hardship that would be caused to the respondent if he were to attend the Family Court, Ernakulam. Taking into account the distance between the residence of the petitioner and the residence of the respondent to the Family Court, Thiruvalla and Tr.P.(C) NO.20 OF 2011 :: 3 :: the Family Court, Ernakulam and also the fact that the petitioner is an unemployed woman aged about 24 years, I am of the view that it is only just and proper to transfer O.P.(Div.) No.1104 of 2010 from the Family Court, Thiruvalla to the Family Court, Ernakulam. 5. The Supreme Court in Sumitha Singh v. Kumar Sanjay and another (2001) 10 SCC 41), Mangla Patil Kale v. Sanjeev Kumar Kale ((2003) 10 SCC 280) and Rajwinder Kaur v. Balwinder Singh ((2003) 11 SCC 726) held that the inconvenience caused to the wife, if no transfer is made, should be taken note of. 6. Accordingly, the Transfer Petition is allowed. O.P.(Div.) No.1104 of 2010, pending before the Family Court, Thiruvalla, shall stand transferred to the Family Court, Ernakulam. The Family Court, Thiruvalla shall transmit the records in O.P.(Div.) No.1104 of 2010 to the Family Court, Ernakulam. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the relatives of the petitioner had threatened the respondent with dire consequences. He apprehends that if he appears before the Family Tr.P.(C) NO.20 OF 2011 :: 4 :: Court, Ernakulam, he will be subjected to physical attack by them. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that there will be no room for any complaint from the side of the petitioner and her relatives about any ill-treatment as apprehended by the respondent. This submission is recorded. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/