IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 27TH OCTOBER 2011 / 5TH KARTHIKA 1933 Tr.P(C).No. 248 of 2011(S) ------------------------------------- OP.1006/2011 OF FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER ------------------- SHEEBA BABY, D/O.BABY, AGED 35, BABY NIVAS, IRACHILPPARA KARA, K.D.H. VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 612. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.VIDYASAGAR, SRI.P.CHANDY JOSEPH. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. SAJI, S/O.VARGHESE, AGED 38, POOPATT HOUSE, KUTHAPPADY, THAMMANAM P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682 025. 2. MARY VARGHESE, W/O.VARGHESE, AGED 60, POOPATT HOUSE, KUTHAPPADY, THAMMANAM P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682 025. BY THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs Tr.P(C).No. 248 of 2011(S) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:- ANNEXURE A1: COPY OF THE O.P. NO. 291/2011 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, THODUPUZHA. ANNEXURE A2: COPY OF THE O.P. NO. 1006/2011 FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR DIVORCE BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Tr.P(C) No.248 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 27th day of October, 2011 O R D E R Service on respondents is complete. 2. This petition is filed by the wife for transfer of O.P. No.1006 of 2011 from the Family Court, Ernakulam to the Family Court, Thodupuzha. That is a petition filed by the first respondent-husband seeking divorce. Petitioner filed O.P. No.291 of 2011 in the Family Court, Thodupuzha for recovery of gold ornaments, etc. That case is pending. It is submitted that petitioner is working as a Teacher at Mankulam which in an interior part of Idukki District and it is difficult for petitioner to travel all the distance from her place of residence to Ernakulam to contest the case. 3. 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. O.P. Tr.P(C) No.248 of 2011 -: 2 :- No.291 of 2011 filed by the petitioner is pending in the Family Court, Thodupuzha. To attend that case, respondents have to go to that court. Petitioner, as the address reveals is residing at KDH Village, in Devikulam Taluk and is working at Mankulam. Learned counsel submits these places are in the interior part of Idukki District. To reach Thodupuzha also petitioner has to travel a long distance. In the circumstances I am inclined to think that the hardship is comparatively more on petitioner in case request for transfer is not allowed. The difficulty if any of the respondents can be reduced by permitting them to appear in the transferee court through counsel except when their physical presence is required. I am inclined to allow the petition. Resultantly, the Petition is allowed as follows: (a) O.P. No.1006 of 2011 pending in the Family Court, Ernakulam is withdrawn from that court and made over to the Family Court, Thodupuzha for trial and disposal. (b) The transferor court while transmitting Tr.P(C) No.248 of 2011 -: 3 :- 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) The Family Court, Thodupuzha shall ensure that O.P. No.1006 of 2011 (transferred to it) and O.P No.291 of 2011 (pending in that court) are posted as far as possible on the same dates. (d) It is made clear that except when physical presence of respondents in the transferee court is necessary, they can appear through counsel. All pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv