IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 21ST DECEMBER 2010 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 Tr.P(C).No. 355 of 2010() ------------------------- OP.1925/2010 of FAMILY COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER (S): RESPONDENT: -------------------------------------------------- GEETHA RAMACHANDRAN, D/O.LATE GOVINDAN, AGED 39 YEARS, RESIDING AT LAKSHMI NIVAS, KAYANI PARAMBU, JUBILY ROAD, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.GEO PAUL, SRI.SANU MATHEW, SRI.C.R.PRAMOD, SRI.NOEL JOSEPH, SRI.M.B.SANDEEP, SRI.K.V.REJANISH. RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER: ----------------------------------------------- RAMACHANDRAN, S/O.PADMANABHAN, AGED 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT REVATHI NIVAS, STADIUM ROAD, NORTH PARAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683 513. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Tr.P(C) No.355 of 2010 ==================================== Dated this the 21st day of December, 2010 O R D E R This petition is filed by petitioner-wife seeking transfer of O.P. No.1925 of 2010 from Family Court, Ernakulam to Family Court, Malappuram. Petitioner is a resident of Perinthalmanna in Malappuram District and there is nobody to accompany her to Family Court, Malappuram. It is stated that petitioner has undergone a surgery for fibroid uterus as evidenced by Annexure- A3, certificate and in the circumstances she finds it difficult to travel all the distance from Perinthalamanna to Family Court, Ernakulam and contest the case. 2. Learned counsel for respondent submits that O.P. No.1925 of 2010 is for restitution of conjugal rights and that if it is possible, parties could be send for medication and possibility of a reunion be ascertained. On this aspect learned counsel for petitioner would contend that even after the case is transferred to Family Court, Malappuram parties can talk over that matter in the conciliation that would follow. 3. The Supreme Court in Sumitha Singh v. Kumar Tr.P(C) No.355 of 2010 -: 2 :- Sanjay and another (AIR 2002 SC 396) and Arti Rani v. Dharmendra Kumar Gupta ([2008] 9 SCC 353) has stated that while considering request for transfer of matrimonial proceedings convenience of the wife has to be looked into. It is not disputed that petitioner-wife who is aged about 39 years is residing at Perinthalmanna. Annexure-A3, certificate shows that petitioner has undergone a surgery. Petitioner finds it difficult to travel the long distance from Perinthalamanna to Family Court, Ernakulam and contest the case. Respondent, aged about 45 years is a resident of North Paravur in Ernakulam District. Having considered the facts and circumstances I am satisfied that comparative hardship is more on petitioner if the request for transfer is not allowed than the inconvenience that may be caused to the respondent if transfer is ordered. Hence I am inclined to allow this petition. Resultantly, petition is allowed in the following lines: (i) O.P. No.1925 of 2010 pending in Family Court, Ernakulam is withdrawn from that court and made over to Family Court, Malappuram. (ii) The transferor court while transmitting records of the case to the transferee court shall fix Tr.P(C) No.355 of 2010 -: 3 :- date for appearance of parties in the transferee court with due intimation to the 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. Presiding Officer, Family Court, Malappuram is directed to send the case for conciliation so that, parties can think of re-union and living together. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv