IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 2ND AUGUST 2010 / 11TH SRAVANA 1932 TR.P(C).NO. 119 OF 2010() ----------------------------------------- OP.416/2009 OF FAMILY COURT, KANNUR .................... PETITIONER: --------------------- SHIMMI MOL GEORGE @ ROSASAMMA GEORGE, D/O.GEORGE,VILAKKUNNEL HOUSE, MOONNILAVU P.O,MEENACHAL TALUK, EERATTUPETTA (VIA)KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN SRI.B.BIPIN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- RIBHEESH THOMAS @ JOSEPH THOMAS, S/O.THOMAS,AGED 33,PATTAYIL VEEDU, VAYATTUPARAMBU (P.O),NADIVIL PANCHAYATH, VALLADU VILLAGE,THALIPARAMBU TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Tr.P(C) No.119 of 2010 ==================================== Dated this the 02nd day of August, 2010 O R D E R Respondent is served on this petition sufficiently early but there is no response. 2. Petitioner-wife seeks transfer of O.P. No.416 of 2009 from Family Court, Kannur to Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor . She is a resident of Ettumanoor and working as staff nurse in a hospital at Kottayam. O.P. No.416 of 2009 is filed by the husband seeking divorce. Petitioner states that she is agreeable for a rapprochement with respondent and filed O.P. No.943 of 2009 seeking restitution of conjugal rights at Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor. Petitioner states that traveling distance from Family Court, Ettumanoor to Family Court, Kannur is more than 250 kms, petitioner’s parents are no more and there is nobody to accompany her to Kannur. 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 held that when considering request for transfer of matrimonial Tr.P(C) No.119 of 2010 -: 2 :- 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. Here is a case where petitioner is a resident of Erattupetta and Family Court, Kannur is situated more than 250 kms away from her place of residence. She has either to go by bus from Erattupetta or to catch train from Ernakulam to reach Family Court, Kannur. Since her parents are no more she has to get the assistance of her relatives to travel to Kanur to attend the Court. Moreover since she is working as a staff nurse (at Kottayam) her intermittent journey will affect her employment. Having considered the comparative hardship that the parties would suffer in case the case is transferred and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case I am satisfied that the inconvenience which petitioner would suffer if the case is not transferred outweighs inconvenience respondent has to suffer if the case is transferred. Having regarding to facts and circumstances of the case I am inclined to allow the request of petitioner. Resultantly, petition is allowed in the following terms. (i) O.P. No.416 of 2009 pending in Family Tr.P(C) No.119 of 2010 -: 3 :- Court, Kannur is withdrawn from that court and transferred to Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor. (ii) The transferor court while transmitting records of the case to the transferee court shall fix date for appearance of parties in the transferee court with due intimation to the counsel for both parties. (iii) The transferee court shall ensure that O.P. Nos.416 of 2009 and 943 of 2009 are posted on the same dates, as far as possible. (iv) It is made clear that except when physical presence of respondent in court is necessary he can appear through counsel. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv