IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 8TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 17TH KARTHIKA 1932 Tr.P(C).No. 267 of 2010() ------------------------- OP.631/2009 of FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD .................... PETITIONER/RESPONDENT IN THE COURT BELOW ------------------------------------------------------------ PRIYA D/O GOPINATH, AGED 23 YEARS, POURNAMI CHOORAKKODU MURI, ERATHU VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT/ (PETITIONER IN THE COURT BELOW) ---------------------------------------------- SURESH S/O.THANKAPPAN, AGED 33 YEARS, MANGAD HOUSE, NELLIKKAD PARAMBU, NENMARA P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT. ADV. SMT.REKHA VASUDEVAN SMT.MINI.V.A. THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- Tr.P(C).No.267 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 08th day of November, 2010 ORDER This petition is for transfer of O.P.No.631 of 2009 from Family Court, Palakkad to Family Court, Pathanamthitta. That is a petition filed by respondent/husband for divorce on the ground of dissolution. Petitioner is a resident of Choorakkodu Muri, in Adoor Taluk. She states that she has a child aged about 2 years and she has to travel more than 150kms from her place of residence to reach Palakkad. In the circumstance she requested for transfer of the cases to Family Court, Pathanamthitta. 2. Petition is opposed by the respondent. It is contended that statements in the petition seeking transfer are incorrect, in that child is aged 3½ years and there is no case now pending in Judicial First Class Magistrate, Adoor. 3. According to the petitioner the child is aged about 2 years. She also states that she has filed M.C.No.16 of 2009 in the court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Adoor seeking maintenance from the respondent. Now that case has been disposed of and a revision is pending in the Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta. It is not disputed that petitioner along with the Tr.P(C).No.267 of 2010 : 2 : minor child is now residing at Choorakkodu Muri, in Adoor Taluk. True, according to the respondent he is a taxi driver. It will take much time for him to come to Pathanamthitta from his place of residence and since he is a taxi driver he cannot avail long leave for attending the court if the case is transferred to Pathanamthitta. 4. Both sides have their own inconveniences. The Supreme Court in Sumitha Singh Vs. Sanjay Kumar & Another (AIR 2002 SC 396) and Arti Rani Lrs. Pinki Devi and Another Vs. Darmendra Kumar Gupta (2008(9) SCC 353) has stated that while considering request for transfer in matrimonial proceeding convenience of the wife has to be looked into. Here, if the case continues at Palakkad petitioner, a lady aged about 23 years has to travel about 150kms. Necessarily, she has to be accompanied by some relative which involves expense also. She has also to look after the minor child aged 2 years as stated by petitioner or 3½ years as pleaded by respondent. It is not disputed that M.C.No.16 of 2009 was contested by respondent in the court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Adoor. It is thereafter that respondent has filed O.P.No.631 of 2009 in Family Court at Palakkad. Having regard to the facts and circumstances Tr.P(C).No.267 of 2010 : 3 : of the case I am persuaded to think that comparative hardship is more on petitioner if request for transfer is not allowed than the inconvenience that may be caused to the husband. The hardship of respondent can be reduced by directing that he need appear in the transferee court only when his physical presence is essential. Hence I am inclined to allow this petition. Resultantly this petition is allowed in the following lines: (i) O.P.No.631 of 2009 pending in Family Court, Palakkad is withdrawn from that court and made over to Family Court, Pathanamthitta. (ii) The transferor court shall transmit records of the case to the transferee court with due intimation to counsel on both sides as to the date of appearance in transferee court. (iii) It is made clear that except when his personal presence is required, respondent can appear in the transferee court through counsel. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-