IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 9TH DECEMBER 2011 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 Tr.P(C).No. 201 of 2011() ------------------------------ OP.350/2011 of FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER/RESPONDENT --------------------------------- S.PRIYA, D/O.VIJAYAN MENON, AGED 34 YEARS, RESIDING AT NITHIN NIVAS, T/C.18/1809, K.R.A.1/2 OPPOSITE ST.MARY'S CENTRAL SCHOOL, ARAMADU P.O., TRIVANDRUM-695032. BY ADVS. SRI.GEO PAUL SRI.SANU MATHEW SRI.C.R.PRAMOD SRI.S.ASHOK KUMAR. SRI.NOEL JOSEPH SRI.M.B.SANDEEP SRI.K.V.REJANIEESH RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------------------ P.S.SREENIVASAN, S/O.SREEDHARAN EMBRANTHIRI, AGED 44 YEARS, 'SEETHARAM NIVAS', DESHABHIMANI ROAD, ELAMAKKARA P.O.,KOCHI-26. BY ADVS. SRI.T.M.MATHAI SRI.C.I.ABRAHAM THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: svs TPC. NO. 201/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE A1:COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM IN I.A.790/2011 IN O.P. NO.350/2011. ANNEXURE A2:COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM IN O.P. NO.350/2011. ANNEXURE A3:COPY OF THE O.P. NO.350/2011 PENDING ON THE FILES OF THE FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Tr.P.(C) No.201 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of December, 2011. ORDER This petition is filed by the wife seeking transfer of O.P. No.350 of 2011 from the Family Court, Ernakulam to the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. That is a petition filed by the respondent-husband for custody of the child. It is stated that parties are separated by divorce and now the fight is for custody of the child. Petitioner states that herself and the child are permanently staying at Thiruvananthapuram and that she has to travel a long distance to reach Ernakulam. 2. Petition is opposed by respondent. It is contended that petitioner is regularly coming to Ernakulam and the petition for transfer is only to harass the respondent. 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 held that while considering the request for transfer of matrimonial proceedings convenience of the wife has to be looked into. 4. Petitioner, aged 34 years is permanently residing at Arumadu, in Thiruvananthapuram District. She has to travel the long distance from her place of residence to Ernakulam to contest the case. She has to be accompanied by Tr.P(C)No.201/2011 2 somebody which involves expense also. Having regard to the circumstances stated before me I am inclined to think that comparative hardship is more on petitioner if the 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, Thiruvananthapuram 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. No.350 of 2011 pending in the Family Court, Ernakulam is withdrawn from that court and transferred to the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram 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) Respondent can appear in the transferee court through counsel except when his physical presence is required. I.A.No.1504 of 2011 will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks