IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 22ND JUNE 2010 / 1ST ASHADHA 1932 Tr.P(C).No. 126 of 2010() ------------------------- OP.113/2010 of FAMILY COURT, KANNUR .................... PETITIONER/IST RESPONDENT: --------------------------------------------- POLACHAN.K.K, S/O.VARKEY,KOYIKKARA HOUSE, ANNAMMANADA PO, THRISSUR DISRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JIJO PAUL RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND 2ND RESPONDENT: -------------------------------------------- 1. BINDU PAUL,W/O.POLACHAN.K.K, ELAVANKUDIYIL HOUSE,NEENDUNOKKI, KOTTIYOOR PO, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. THE CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK, (REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER) ANNAMMANADA BRANCH, THRISSUR. ADV. SRI.T.J.MICHAEL FOR R1 SRI.JOSE MATHEW (KAVALAKALAM) FOR R1 THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- Tr.P.(C).No.126 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 22nd day of June, 2010 ORDER This petition is filed by the husband seeking transfer of O.P.No.113 of 2010 from the Family Court, Kannur to Family Court, Thrissur. That is a petition filed by respondent No.1/wife for return of gold ornaments and other reliefs. In the meantime petitioner has filed O.P.No.583 of 2010 in the Family Court, Thrissur for divorce. Grievance of petitioner is that he is a resident of Thrissur District working in Dubai and has engaged a power of attorney, his parents are aged and that it is difficult for him and the power of attorney holder to go to Family Court, Kannur where O.P.No.113 of 2010 is pending and hence the request for transfer. Petition is opposed by counsel for respondent No.1. It is contended that respondent No.1/wife is a resident of Kottiyoor in Kannur District and that she has to travel about 200kms from her place of residence to reach the Family Court at Thrissur. It is also stated that petitioner is being represented by power of attorney. The Supreme Court in Sumithra Singh Vs. Kumar Sanjay & Another (AIR 2002 SC 396) has stated that while considering request for transfer in matrimonial proceedings convenience of the : 2 : wife has to be looked into. I agree that it does not mean that convenience of the husband shall not be looked into. Here is a case where respondent No.1/wife is a permanent resident of Kottiyoor in Kannur district where she has already filed a proceeding against petitioner. If she is asked to travel all the way from her place of residence to Thrissur it will cause much inconvenience to her. She has to be accompanied by somebody related to her. As regards the husband it makes no difference whether the case is transferred to Thrissur or not since he is represented by a power of attorney holder. Since considering the comparative difficulties and hardships between respondent No.1/wife and power of attorney of petitioner I am inclined to think that if the case pending in the Family Court, Kannur is transferred to Family Court, Thrissur that will cause much inconvenience and hardship to respondent No.1/wife. In the circumstances, request cannot be allowed. Resultantly this petition fails. It is dismissed. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-