IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 20TH AUGUST 2010 / 29TH SRAVANA 1932 TR.P(C).NO. 243 OF 2010() ------------------------- OPHMA.669/2010 OF FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM .................... PETITIONER ----------------- C.S.PADMINI, AGED 46 YEARS, D/O.SUBRAHMANIYAN, CHAKKALAKKAL HOUSE, KONTHURUTHY, THEVARA. BY ADV. SRI.K.R.VINOD SMT.M.S.LETHA RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ P.S.VIJAYAN, S/O.SANKU, AGED 51, PATTASSERI VEETTIL, VADAYAR, THALAYOLAPARAMBU, KOTTAYAM. THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Tr.P(C) No.243 of 2010 ==================================== Dated this the 20th day of August, 2010 O R D E R Respondent is served but he is not responding. 2. This petition is filed by the wife seeking transfer of O.P (HMA) No.669 of 2010 from Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor to Family Court, Ernakulam. That is a petition filed by the respondent for dissolution of marriage. Though subsequently petitioner has filed M.C. No.203 of 2010 in Family Court, Ernakulam seeking maintenance from respondent. Petitioner states that she is a resident of Thevara and is suffering from tuberculosis. To support that contention she has produced Ext.P2, discharge summary. She is unable to travel the long distance of about 80 kms from her residence to Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor. Respondent is a resident Thalayolaparambu and hence transfer of the case (from Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor) to Family Court, Ernakulam will not cause much inconvenience to him. 3. The Supreme Court in Sumitha Singh v. Kumar Sanjay and another (AIR 2002 SC 396) and Arti Rani v. Tr.P(C) No.243 of 2010 -: 2 :- Dharmendra Kumar Gupta ([2008] 9 SCC 353) held that while considering request for transfer of matrimonial proceedings convenience of the wife has to be looked into. That of course does not mean that inconvenience of the husband has to be ignored. Having regard to the facts and circumstances stated above and considering the comparative hardship of petitioner if the case continued in Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor 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. It is shown by Ext.P2 that petitioner is suffering from tuberculosis. She has to travel long distance to conduct the case in Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor. Transfer of the case to Ernakulam will not cause much inconvenience to the respondent since he is a resident of Thalayolaparambu. In the circumstance I am inclined to allow this petition. Resultantly this petition is allowed in the following lines. (i) O.P(HMA) No.669 of 2009 pending in Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor is withdrawn from that court and made over to Family Court, Ernakulam. Tr.P(C) No.243 of 2010 -: 3 :- (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. (HMA) No.669 of 2009 and M.C.No.203 of 2010 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