IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 3RD AUGUST 2010 / 12TH SRAVANA 1932 TR.P(C).NO. 190 OF 2010() ------------------------------------- OP.870/2009 OF FAMILY COURT,KOZHIKODE .................... PETITIONER ------------------- C.CHINNAMMA, D/O. CHERIAN, C/O. JOHNY, PUNNAVILAYIL VEEDU, ADOOR.P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DIST. BY ADV. SRI.S.M.PRASANTH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ P.M.SAMUAL S/O. MATHAI VARGHESE, PADINJARE VEETTIL M 10/19, MALAPARAMBU HOUSING COLONY, MALAPARAMBU.P.O., CALICUT-673009. ADV. SRI.MANJERI SUNDERRAJ FOR R1 THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Tr.P(C) No.190 of 2010 ==================================== Dated this the 03rd day of August, 2010 O R D E R This petition is filed for transfer of O.P. No.870 of 2009 from Family Court, Kozhikode to Family Court, Thiruvalla. Parties are aged about 65 or above and are fighting. Respondent filed O.P. No.870 of 2009 in Family Court, Kozhikode seeking restitution of conjugal rights. Petitioner has her own reasons to keep away from company of respondent. It is stated that she is now staying at Adoor, aged about 65 years and suffering from old age illness including rheumatism. On account of her inability to attend Family Court, Kozhikode case was once decided ex parte and later set aside on the application of petitioner. 2. Petition is opposed by counsel for respondent. It is stated that whatever grounds stated by petitioner as to old age and illness are applicable to respondent also who is still older than petitioner. It is stated that petitioner had appeared in Family Court, Kozhikode and hence there will be no difficulty for her to contest the case in that Court. Tr.P(C) No.190 of 2010 -: 2 :- 3. Parties are retired school teachers. It is not disputed that petitioner is now staying at Adoor which is far away from Kozhikode. Contention of respondent is as if petitioner has some mental derangement for which she was undergoing treatment at Kozhikode. If that be so it is all the more reason why her long travel to Kozhikode is to be avoided. 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 stated that when considering request for transfer of matrimonial 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. 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 though still older has to suffer if transfer of the case is ordered. Having regard to all relevant aspects of the matter, I am inclined to allow the request of petitioner. Tr.P(C) No.190 of 2010 -: 3 :- Resultantly, petition is allowed in the following lines: (i) O.P. No.870 of 2010 pending in Family Court, Kozhikode is withdrawn from that court and transferred to Family Court, Thiruvalla. (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 counsel for both parties. (iii) It is made clear that except when physical presence of respondent in the transferee court is necessary he can appear through counsel. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv