IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 12TH AUGUST 2011 / 21ST SRAVANA 1933 Tr.P(C).No. 223 of 2011() ------------------------------------ OP(HMA)NO .575/2011 of FAMILY COURT, ALAPPUZHA .................... PETITIONER -------------------- AMBILI, AGED 43 YEARS, MRS & MR.SUGATHAN, MECHOOR HOUSE, VELUTOOR POST, KUNNATHANGADI, THRISSUR-680016 BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. SATHEESH, S/O.E.P.ACHUTHAN PILLAI, ASHIRVAD, NO.476, 6TH CROSS, GOKUL 1ST STAGE, IIND PHASE, MATHIKERA MAIN ROAD, YESWANTHPURM BANGLORE-560 022. 2. K.RAVIKUMAR(PROPRIETOR) REALISTIC SYSTEM, NO.882, OPP.MOTHER THERESA SCHOOL, MES RING ROAD, GOKHULA POST, NEW DELL ROAD, BANGALORE-97 R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.VINODKUMAR SRI.T.K.AJITH KUMAR SRI.K.S.ARUNDAS THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/08/2011, ALOGN WITH TR.P(C)NO.224 OF 2011 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts TPC.NO.223/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEX A COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN OP(HMA) 575/2011 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT ALAPPUZHA. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO.JUDGE sts THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Tr.P.(C) Nos.223 & 224 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of August, 2011. ORDER These petitions are filed by the wife seeking transfer of O.P.(HMA) No.575 of 2011 and O.P.No.574 of 2011, respectively of Family Court, Alappuzha to Family Court, Thrissur. Those petitions are filed by the first respondent – husband in Tr.P.(C) No.223 of 2011 (who is the sole respondent in Tr.P.(C) No.224 of 2011) for divorce on the ground of adultery. Second respondent in Tr.P.(C) No.223 of 2011 is the alleged adulterer. O.P.No.574 of 2011 is filed by respondent seeking custody of the child. It is stated that petitioner, wife is aged about 43 years, is residing at Kunnathangadi, in Thrissur District and that she has to travel about 200 kms. to reach Alappuzha to contest the cases. It is also stated that she finds it difficult to travel all the distance with her daughter aged 11 years since her custody is prayed for in O.P.No.574 of 2011. Since petitioner's father is aged about 71 years and suffering serious ailments, there is nobody to accompany her to Alappuzha. 2. 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 Tr.P.(C) Nos.223 & 224/2011 2 request for transfer of matrimonial proceedings convenience of the wife has to be looked into. True that does not mean that inconvenience if any of the opposite party need not be considered. 3. Having regard to these circumstances stated by petitioner and having considered the decisions above mentioned I am inclined to think that comparative hardship is more on petitioner if the request for transfer is not allowed. Transfer of cases from Family Court, Alappuzha to Family Court, Thrissur may not cause much inconvenience to the respondents since they are shown to be staying at Bangalore. The inconvenience if any of respondents could be reduced by directing that they need appear in Family Court, Thrissur only when their physical presence is required. In the circumstances I am inclined to allow the request. Resultantly these petitions are allowed in the following lines: (i) O.P.(HMA) No.575 of 2011 and O.P.No.574 of 2011 pending in Family Court, Alappuzha are withdrawn from that court and transferred to Family Court, Thrissur for trial and disposal. (ii) The transferor court while transmitting records of the cases to the transferee court shall fix date for appearance of parties in the transferee Tr.P.(C) Nos.223 & 224/2011 3 court with due intimation to the counsel for both parties. (iii) The transferee court shall post the cases - O.P.(HMA) No.575 of 2011 and O.P.No.574 of 2011 as far as possible on the same dates. (iv) Respondents can appear in the transferee court through counsel except when their physical presence is required. All pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks