IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 22ND NOVEMBER 2011 / 1ST AGRAHAYANA 1933 Tr.P(C).No. 243 of 2011() ----------------------------------- OP.NO.1737/2010 of FAMILY COURT,THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER/RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------- DONIA SIMON, AGED 27 YEARS, D/O.SIMON, KARACHUVATTIL HOUSE, MAMANGALAM, PALARIVATTOM, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 025. BY ADV. SRI.JIMMY JOHN VELLANIKARAN SRI.NAVEEN THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER --------------------------------------------- VIJAY ALEX, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.ALEX, NELKUNNASSERY HOUSE, AYYANTHOLE VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680 003. BY ADV. SRI.SHOBY K.FRANCIS THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts TP(C)NO.243/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEX A1 COPY OF THE ORIGINAL PETITION NUMBERED AS O.P.NO.1737/2010 ON THE FILE OF HONOURABLE FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR. ANNEX A2 COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 7/7/2011 NUMBERED AS I.A.NO.4590/2011 IN O.P.NO.1737/2010 ON THE FILE OF HONOURABLE FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO.JUDGE sts THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Tr.P(C) No.243 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 22nd day of November, 2011 O R D E R This petition is filed by the wife seeking transfer of O.P. No.1737 of 2010 from the Family Court, Thrissur to the Family Court, Ernakulam. That petition was filed by the respondent- husband seeking divorce. It is stated that petitioner, aged 27 years is residing at Mamangalam, Ernakulam and it is inconvenient for her to travel upto to Thrissur to contest the case. 2. Application is opposed. It is contended that the father of petitioner is creating problems and that respondent is apprehensive of going to Ernakulam to contest the case. Learned counsel for respondent has read over to me the report submitted by the Advocate Commissioner who was present on three occasions when the respondent was permitted to visit the child in a Church. 3. On hearing counsel I am not inclined to think that the situation is so grave that respondent would have any genuine Tr.P(C) No.243 of 2011 -: 2 :- apprehension in going to Ernakulam. If at all he finds it difficult to attend the Family Court, Ernakulam it is open to him to bring that matter to the notice of the Presiding Officer of the Family Court, Ernakulam. 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 27 years and she finds it difficult to travel the long distance from her place of residence to Thrissur to contest the case. Having regard to the comparative hardship I am inclined to think that the hardship is more on petitioner if the request for transfer is not allowed. The inconvenience if any of respondent can be reduced by directing that he can appear in the transferee court through counsel except when his physical presence is required. Resultantly, Transfer Petition is allowed as follows: (a) O.P. No.1737 of 2010 pending in the Family Court, Thrissur is withdrawn from that Tr.P(C) No.243 of 2011 -: 3 :- court and made over to the Family Court, Ernakulam 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