IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DECEMBER 2011 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA 1933 Tr.P(C).No. 394 of 2011() ----------------------------------- OP(HMA).969/2011 OF FAMILY COURT, ALAPPUZHA .................... PETITIONER ------------------ RESHMI, W/O.AJEESH KUMAR, AGED 22 YEARS, KANIPARAMBIL HOUSE, EDAYARANMULA P.O., ARANMULA VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.N.RADHAKRISHNAN (THIRUVALLA). RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- K.S. AJEESH KUMAR, S/O.SASIKUMAR, "SHIVADHWANI", BHARANIKKAVU P.O., BHARANIKKAVU SOUTH, KATTANAM, MAVELIKKARA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-690 101. BY THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs Tr.P(C).No. 394 of 2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:- ANNEXURE 1 COPY OF THE O.P. NO. 969/2011 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT HEREIN BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, ALAPPUZHA. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Tr.P.(C) No.394 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of December, 2011. ORDER Respondent is served but, there is no response. 2. This petition is filed by the wife seeking transfer of O.P.(HMA) No.969 of 2011 from the Family Court, Alappuzha to the Family Court, Thiruvalla. That is a petition filed by the respondent-husband for divorce. Petitioner has filed O.P.No.224 of 2010 and M.C.No.140 of 2011 in the Family Court, Thiruvalla, the former for recovery of patrimony and other reliefs and the latter, for maintenance from the respondent. It is stated that petitioner is residing at Edayaranmula, in Pathanamthitta District and that she has to travel a long distance to reach Alappuzha. Hence the request for transfer. 3. Petitioner aged about 22 years is residing at Edayaranmula, in Pathanamthitta District, which is nearer to Thiruvalla than Alappuzha. Since two proceedings are pending in the Family Court, Thiruvalla respondent has to appear in that court in connection with those cases. It is appropriate that all the cases are disposed of by the same court. 4. The Supreme Court in Sumitha Singh v. Kumar Sanjay and another (AIR 2002 SC 396) and Arti Rani v. Dharmendra Tr.P(C)No.394/2011 2 Kumar Gupta [(2008) 9 SCC 353] has held that while considering the request for transfer of matrimonial proceedings convenience of the wife has to be looked into. Having regard to the circumstances stated before me I am inclined to think that comparative hardship is more on petitioner if request for transfer is not allowed. The inconvenience that may be caused to the respondent could be reduced by directing that he could appear in the Family Court, Thiruvalla through counsel except when his physical presence is required. I am inclined to allow the request for transfer. Resultantly this petition is allowed as follows: (i) O.P.(HMA) No.969 of 2011 pending in the Family Court, Alappuzha is withdrawn from that court and transferred to the Family Court, Thiruvalla for trial and disposal. (ii) 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 for both parties. (iii) The transferee court shall post the cases - O.P(HMA) No.969 of 2011 (being transferred to that court) and O.P.No.224 of 2010 and M.C.No.140 of 2011 (pending in that court) as far as possible on the same dates. (iv) Respondent can appear in the transferee court through Tr.P(C)No.394/2011 3 counsel except when his physical presence is required. I.A.No.2654 of 2011 will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks