IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 11TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 20TH KARTHIKA 1933 Tr.P(Crl.).No. 46 of 2011() ------------------------------------- MC.NO.20/2011 of FAMILY COURT,KOLLAM .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ VINOJ MATHEW, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.K.JOHN MATHEW, KUNNAKOOTT HOUSE, POURNAMI NAGAR, ALUVA-683 101. BY ADV. SRI.A.JAYASANKAR SRI.MANU GOVIND RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. SIMI THOMAS, AGED 24 YEARS, D/O.THOMAS THARAKAN, KRIPALAYAM, PADINJATTEKARA P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT-690 524. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031. R1 BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/11/2011, ALONG WITH TPC NO. 178 OF 2011 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts Tr.P(Crl.).No. 46 of 2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEX A1 COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF O.P.NO.1503/2010 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE FAMILY COURT,KOLLAM. ANNEX A2 COPY OF THE M.C.NO.20/2011 FILED BY RESPONDENT BEFORE FAMILY COURT, KOLLAM. ANNEX A3 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15/06/2011 IN TR.PC.178/2011. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO.JUDGE sts THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Tr.P.(Crl) No.46 of 2011 & Tr.P.(C) No. 178 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of November, 2011. ORDER These petitions are filed by the husband and his parents for transfer of two proceedings in the Family Court, Kollam to the Family Court, Ernakulam. O.P.No.1503 of 2010 is a petition filed by the wife against the husband and parents for return of gold ornaments and other reliefs. She has also filed M.C.No.20 of 2011 in the same court against the husband claiming maintenance. The husband and his parents want the above proceedings to be transferred to the Family Court, Ernakulam. It is stated that the husband and his parents are permanent residents of Aluva, the husband is working abroad and isrepresented by his aged parents (petitioners 2 and 3 in Tr.P.(C) No.178 of 2011) who are also impleaded as parties in O.P.No.1503 of 2010. It is contended that it is difficult for parents of the husband to travel all the distance to Kollam and conduct the cases. Hence the request for transfer. 2. Petitions are opposed by the respondent-wife. It is contended that the wife is a permanent resident of Karunagappally, in Kollam District and is studying for BAMS at Thiruvananthapuram, presently undergoing house Tr.P.(Crl) No.46 of 2011 & Tr.P.(C) No. 178 of 2011 2 surgency. If the cases are transferred to Ernakulam she has to travel a long distance either from the place of present stay or permanent house at Karunagappally, in Kollam District and that will affect her study. 3. True, that parents of the husband (petitioners 2 and 3 in Tr.P.(C) No.178 of 2011) are aged 60 and 65 years and they are said to be the power of attorney holders of their son (1st petitioner). It is submitted that the 3rd petitioner, father of the husband is suffering various ailments. But, for that reason alone it is hard to ask the respondent aged 24 years to travel the long distance from her present place of stay or permanent residence to Ernakulam. Apart from the fact that the young lady has to travel the long distance that may also affect her study. 4. 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 while considering the request for transfer of matrimonial proceedings convenience of the wife has to be looked into. I am not inclined to think having regard to the circumstances brought before me that the comparative hardship is more on the husband and his parents (if the request for transfer is not allowed) than the hardship that may be caused to the respondent-wife if the request is allowed. Tr.P.(Crl) No.46 of 2011 & Tr.P.(C) No. 178 of 2011 3 Inconvenience that may be caused to petitioners 2 and 3 in Tr.P.(C) No.178 of 2011 could be reduced by directing that they could appear in the Family Court, Kollam through counsel except when their physical presence is required. In the circumstances stated above the request for transfer cannot be allowed. Resultantly these petitions are dismissed. But it is directed that petitioners can appear in the Family Court, Kollam through counsel except when their physical presence is required. All pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks