IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2011 / 28TH ASWINA 1933 Tr.P(C).No. 318 of 2011() ------------------------- OPHMA.869/2011 of FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM .................... PETITIONER: ------------------ SUNITHA, AGED 27 YEARS, D/O.CHAMMINI, OZHUKILTHEVAR KALATHIL VEEDU, POST PATTITHARA, ALOOR, OTTAPALAM TALUK. BY ADV. SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMI SRI.R.SREEHARI RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. UNNIKRISHNAN, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.KORMAN, KONNAMKADAVATH VEEDU, POST PERUMPARAMBU, PONNANI TALUK, PIN: 673 639. 2. SREEJITH, S/O.THAMI, POTTANTHOTTIL VEEDU, POST KUMBIDI, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PIN: 679553. THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Tr.P(C).No. 318 of 2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE A1 : COPY OF THE PETITION O.P(H.M.A).NO.869/2011 FILED BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- Tr.P(C).No.318 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 20th day of October, 2011 ORDER Respondents are served sufficiently early but, there is no response. 2. This petition is filed by the wife seeking transfer of O.P(H.M.A).No.869 of 2011 from the Family Court, Malappuram to the Family Court, Palakkad. That petition is filed by the first respondent seeking divorce alleging adultery. Second respondent is alleged to be the adulterer. 3. It is stated that petitioner is a resident at Trithala and that she has to catch three buses to reach Malappuram. Distance wise, it is submitted that Malappuram is about 25kms more by distance than to Palakkad. It is also pointed out that first respondent is working in the BSF and hence transfer of the case to Palakkad will not affect him adversely. 4. 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 the request for transfer in matrimonial proceedings convenience of the wife has Tr.P(C).No.318 of 2011 -: 2 :- to be looked into. Petitioner is aged about 27 years, residing at Trithala. As the learned counsel submits, she has to catch three buses to reach Malappuram. She has to be accompanied by somebody which involves expense also. The comparative hardship having regard to the circumstances is more on petitioner if request for transfer is not allowed. The inconvenience that may be caused to the first respondent can be reduced by directing that he need appear in the transferee Court only when his physical presence is required. Resultantly this petition is allowed as follows: (i) O.P(H.M.A).No.869 of 2011 pending in Family Court, MalappuraM is withdrawn from that court and made over to Family Court, Palakkad. (ii) The transferor court shall transmit records of the case to the transferee court with due intimation to the counsel on both sides as to the date of appearance in the transferee court. (iii) It is made clear that except when physical presence of first respondent is necessary it is open to him to appear through counsel in the transferee court. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-