IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 4TH JULY 2011 / 13TH ASHADHA 1933 Tr.P(C).No. 165 of 2011() ------------------------- OP.840/2011 of FAMILY COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER/RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------- LYDIA NANCY PRABHA, AGED 44 YEARS, D/O GODWIN WILLIAMS KARKADA, NO.201, D-BLOCK, MANGALA SAHAYOG COMPLEX, ALAKE, KUDROLI, MANGALAORE-675003, D.K.DISTRICT, KARNATAKA STATE. BY ADV. SRI.K.SHRIHARI RAO SMT.N.SHOBHA SRI.K.S.BALAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------- JAISON CHELLA, S/O JOHN LESLY CHELLA, AGED 45 YEARS, NOW WORKING AS SENIOR TECHNICIAN, DEPARTMENT OF LIGHT HOUSES AND LIGHT SHIPS, MINISTRY OF SHIPPING, KADAVANTHRA, KOCHI-682020. ADV. SRI.P.A.MARTIN ROY THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: TR.P(C) NO.165/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE-A1 TRUE COPY OF THE OP NO.840/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Tr.P.(C) No.165 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of July, 2011. ORDER Petitioner is the respondent in O.P.No.840 of 2011 of Family Court, Ernakulam for divorce under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act. Petitioner requests to transfer the case to Family Court, Kasaragod. The reason stated is that petitioner is residing at Mangalore, in Karnataka and that it is difficult for her to travel to Ernakulam and contest the case. It is also stated that petitioner has a son aged 18 years studying for B.E. Degree at Mangalore. Hence this petition. Respondent has appeared through counsel. Opposed the petition. 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 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 husband need not be considered. Petitioner is aged 44 years and is residing at Mangalore while respondent is aged 45 years, working in the Ministry of Shipping and staying at Kadavanthra, Ernakulam. There could be no doubt that if the case is transferred to Family Court, Kasaragod respondent will be put to some hardship. But the hardship is more on the petitioner if request is not Tr.P.(C) No.165/2011 2 allowed. The hardship of respondent could be reduced by directing that he need appear in Family Court, Kasaragod only as and when his presence is required. Having regard to the facts I am inclined to allow this petition. Resultantly this petition is allowed in the following lines: (i) O.P.No.840 of 2011 pending in Family Court, Ernakulam is withdrawn from that court and transferred to Family Court, Kasaragod for trial and disposal. (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) It is made clear that except when physical presence of respondent in the transferee court is necessary, he can appear through counsel. I.A.No.1185 of 2011 will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks