IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 19TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 30TH MAGHA 1929 Tr.P(C).No. 273 of 2007() ------------------------------------- (O.P.(G&W) NO.968 OF 2007 AND O.P.NO.966/2007 OF FAMILY COURT, ALAPPUZHA TO FAMILY COURT, THIRUVALLA) PETITIONER: ------------------- SEEMA SADANANDAN, AGED 29 YEARS, D/O.SADANANDAN, ONPATHIL HOUSE, THENGELI-KUTTOOR P.O., KUTTOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA. BY ADV. SRI.P.HARIDAS RESPONDENT: ---------------------- DR.AMIT RAWAT, AGED 31 YEARS, S/O.LT.COL. D.S.RAWAT, KOLLAPARAMBIL HOUSE, RAMAVARMA JUNCTION, AVALOOKUNNU P.O., SOUTH ARYAD, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.E.JAYADEV THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. --------------------------- Tr.P.(C) No.273 OF 2007 -------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of February, 2008 O R D E R ~~~~~~~ This transfer petition is field by the wife for transferring O.P.Nos.968/2007 and 966/2007 pending before the Family Court, Alappuzha to Family Court, Thiruvalla where the M.C.No.276/2007 and O.P.No.683/2007 are pending. The two applications pending before the Family Court, Alappuzha are; one for the custody of child and other is for divorce and the cases pending before the Thiruvalla court are; one for maintenance and the other for realisation of the money. It is submitted that there is nobody to accompany the wife and she is having a three year old child and in custody cases if child is to be produced of and on it will cause considerable hardship and therefore it is prayed that the cases pending before the Family Court, Alappuzha may be transferred to the Family Court, Thiruvalla. The learned counsel had relied upon the decision of the Apex court in Sumita Singh v. Kumar Sanjay reported in [A.I.R.2002 S.C.396]. But in a later decision the Apex court has held that each case has to be decided on the merits of that case Tr.P.(C) No.273/2007 2 but it is to be understood that the point to be considered is regarding the comparative hardship. The young lady with a child of three years and having old parent is certainly in a more disabled position and the distance to be covered also is about 35 or 40 kms which will certainly cause embarrassment to the lady. 2. Therefore, taking into consideration the comparative hardship, I feel the case has to be transferred from the Family Court, Alappuza to the Family Court, Thiruvalla . Therefore, the transfer petition is allowed. I make it very clear that unless there is real necessity for the husband to appear, his presence need not be insisted on every hearing date except for the purpose of counselling as well as at the time of trial or any peculiar circumstances. With the above observations the transfer petition is disposed of. (M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE) ps