IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 6TH DECEMBER 2011 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 Tr.P(C).No. 287 of 2011() ------------------------- OP.412/2011 of FAMILY COURT, VADAKARA .................... PETITIONER: -------------------- BINDU K.S. , D/O.SETHUMADHAVAN AGED 30 YEARS, RESIDING AT NEAR PERUNTHATTIL NARAYANA MADOM, ERATHOLI AMSOM DESOM THALASSERY TALUK, P.O. UMMANCHIERA PERUNTHATTIL, VIA KOISSERY, THALASSERY. BY ADV. SRI.V.RAMKUMAR NAMBIAR RESPONDENT: --------------- SAJITH KUMAR M, S/O.BALAN AGED 39 YEARS, OMANALAYAM (NEAR ROOPA INDUSTRIES) BANK STAFF, K.T.BAZAR, MUTTANGAL AMSOM RAYARANGOTH DESOM, VADAKARA TALUK P.O.RAYARANGOTH 673 102. ADV. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN FOR R1 SMT.A.R.PRAVITHA FOR R1 THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/12/2011 ALONG WITH Tr.P(C).No.288 OF 2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Tr.P(C).No. 287 of 2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: Annexure-A1 : TRUE COPY OF the PETITION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT IN O.P.N.412 OF 2011 BEFORE the FAMILY COURT, VADAKARA Annexure-A2 : TRUE COPY OF THE SUMMONS ISSUED BY the FAMILY COURT, VADAKRA DIRECTING THE PETITIONERS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, VADAKARA ON 20.09.2011 IN O.P.NO.412 OF 2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /True Copy/ P.A to Judge THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- Tr.P(C).Nos.287 and 288 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 06th day of December, 2011 ORDER These petitions are filed by the wife seeking transfer of O.P.Nos.412 of 2011 and 434 of 2011 from the Family Court, Vadakara to the Family Court, Thalassery. Those proceedings are initiated by the respondent/husband for restitution of conjugal rights and for custody of the minor child. It is stated that petitioner is residing at Koissery, in Eratholi village near Thalasesry Taluk and that she has to travel long distance to reach Family Court, Vadakara. 2. Petition is opposed by the respondent. Until 03.12.2011 petitioner and respondent were residing with the respondent within the jurisdiction of Family Court, Vadakara and hence Family Court, Vadakara has jurisdiction to entertain the original petitions. It is also contended that distance from the place of residence of petitioner to the Family Court, Vadakara is only 18km and the attempt is only to harass respondent. 3. The Supreme Court in Sumitha Singh Vs. Sanjay Kumar & Another (AIR 2002 SC 396) and Arti Rani Lrs. Pinki Devi and Another Vs. Darmendra Kumar Gupta (2008 Tr.P(C).Nos.287 and 288 of 2011 -: 2 :- (9) SCC 353) has stated that while considering request for transfer in matrimonial proceedings convenience of the wife has to be looked into. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that distance from the place of residence of petitioner to Family Court, Vadakara is not less than 25kms. I am inclined to accept that stand. That, petitioner and the child were allegedly residing with respondent within the jurisdiction of Family Court, Vadakara and hence the said Court has jurisdiction to entertain the original petitions does not bar this Court allowing the request for transfer of the cases to the Family Court, Thalassery. Having regard to the circumstances stated, I am inclined to think that comparative hardship is more on petitioner if request for transfer is not allowed. Hence I am inclined to allow the request. Resultantly these petitions are allowed as follows: (i) O.P.Nos.412 and 434 of 2011 pending in the Family Court, Vadakara are withdrawn from that court and transferred to the Family Court, Thalassery. (ii) The transferor court shall transmit records of the case to the transferee court with due intimation to the counsel on both sides as to the date of appearance in the transferee court. Tr.P(C).Nos.287 and 288 of 2011 -: 3 :- (iii) It is made clear that except when physical presence of respondent is necessary it is open to him to appear through counsel in the transferee court. (THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-