IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 8TH DECEMBER 2011 / 17TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 Tr.P(C).No. 322 of 2011() ------------------------------ OP(HMA).806/2011 of FAMILY COURT, ALAPPUZHA .................... PETITIONER(RESPONDENT IN O.P(HMA)NO.804/2011 FAMILY COURT, ALAPPUZHA) ----------------------------------------------------------------- R.MINIMOL, AGED 38 YEARS, D/O.KESAVAN,SMITHA NIVAS, MEPPADI P.O, WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY ADVS SRI.P.K.JOSE SMT.TESSY JOSE RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER IN O.P.HMA NO.804/2011 FAMILY COURT, ALAPPUZHA ------------------------------------------------------------------- SANTHOSH K.T,AGED,S/O.THEVAN, THARAYITHARA HOUSE,ERAMALLOOR P.O, SHERTHALA ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. R1 BY ADV. SRI.T.B.SARASAN THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: svs TPC. NO. 322/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE 1:COPY OF OP(HMA) NO.806/2011 DATED OF THE FAMILY COURT ALAPPUZHA. ANNEXURE 2:COPY OF THE SUMMONS DATED 21/07/2011 ISSUED BY THE FAMILY COURT ALAPPUZHA. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Tr.P(C) No.322 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 08th day of December, 2011 O R D E R This petition is filed by the wife seeking transfer of O.P (HMA) No.806 of 2011 from the Family Court, Alappuzha to the Family Court, Wayand, at Kalpetta. That petition is filed by the respondent-husband for restitution of conjugal rights. Petitioner states that she is a resident of Meppadi, in Wayanad District, has to look after her four year old school going child and that since she is employed as Junior Auditor in the Co-operative Department in Vythiri Taluk in Wayanad District, she finds it difficult to travel the long distance from her place of residence to Alappuzha to contest the case. Hence the request for transfer. 2. Petition is opposed by the respondent. In the courter affidavit it is stated that the reasons stated in the petition for transfer are not correct and that there is no genuine need to transfer the case. It is also stated that intention of petitioner by requesting transfer is only to harass the respondent who approached the competent court under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Learned counsel submitted that in the Tr.P(C) No.322 of 2011 -: 2 :- circumstances the request for transfer may not be allowed. 3. May be the Family Court, Alappuzha was competent to entertain O.P(HMA) No.806 of 2011. That does not prevent this Court from considering the request for transfer if grounds for that exist. 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 while considering request for transfer of matrimonial proceedings convenience of the wife has to be looked into. Petitioner is aged 38 years, is a resident of Meppadi in Wayanad District and has to look after her four year old child studying in the School about 1.5 kms from her place of residence. She is employed as Junior Auditor in the Co-operative Department in Vythiri Taluk in Wayanad District. She has to travel the long distance from her place of residence to Alappuzha in case the case is allowed to continue there. Considering the comparative hardship I find that it is more on petitioner in case the request for transfer is not allowed. True, it may cause some inconvenience to the respondent which can be reduced by directing that he can appear in the transferee court through counsel except when his Tr.P(C) No.322 of 2011 -: 3 :- physical presence is required. Resultantly, Transfer Petition is allowed as follows: (a) O.P(HMA) No.806 of 2011 pending in the Family Court, Alappuzha is withdrawn from that court and made over to Family Court, Wayanad at Kalpetta for trial and disposal. (b) The transferor court while transmitting records of the case to the transferee court shall fix the date for appearance of parties in the transferee court with due intimation to the counsel on both sides. (c) It is made clear that except when physical presence of respondent in the transferee court is necessary, he can appear through counsel. All pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv