IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 6TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 15TH BHADRA 1932 Tr.P(C).No. 251 of 2010() ------------------------- OP.474/2010 & 108/2010 of FAMILY COURT,KOZHIKODE .................... PETITIONER/RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------- RASHITHA, D/O.K.K.RAJAN, SOUPARNIKAM, THIRUVANGAD PO,TELLICHERRY, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 102. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.SOHAN SMT.SREEJA SOHAN.K. RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------- BIJU LAL, S/O.LATE BALAKRISHNAN, 'SIVAM',EMBILAKKATTU PARAMBU, ANANDAPURAM, ELATHUR PO,KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.-673 303. ADV. SRI.JACOB ABRAHAM SMT.KOCHUMOL KODUVATH THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Tr.P.(C) No.251 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of September, 2010. ORDER This petition is filed by the wife who is a resident of Talassery in Kannur District seeking transfer of O.P. Nos.474 of 2010 and 108 of 2010 from Family Court, Kozhikode to Family Court, Kannur. Those petitions are filed by the respondent/husband for custody of children and for divorce. Petitioner states that she is a resident of Thalassery, in Kannur District, children are studying at Thalassery and that she has to travel a long distance to attend Family Court, Kozhikode. Respondent is a resident of Elathur, in Kozhikode District . Learned counsel for petitioner requests that the cases may be transferred to Family Court, Kannur. Learned counsel for respondent contended that in O.P.No.474 of 2010 there is an order to produce the child in the court concerned, but petitioner is not complying with that order. 2. 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. True that does not mean that inconvenience if any of the husband need not be considered. Tr.P.(C) No.251/2010 2 3. Considering the fact that petitioner is a lady aged about 35 years, that she has to travel a long distance and that she has to be accompanied by somebody which involves huge expenses, the comparative hardship on the petitioner is higher if the request for transfer is not allowed than the hardship on the respondent if request for transfer is allowed. Hence I am inclined to allow this petition. Resultantly this petition is allowed in the following lines: i. O.P. Nos.474 of 2010 and 108 of 2010 pending in Family Court, Kozhikode are withdrawn from that court and made over to Family Court, Kannur for trial and disposal. ii. The transferor court shall, while transmitting records of the cases to the transferee court fix date for appearance of parties in the transferee court with due intimation to the counsel on both sides. iii. It is made clear that except when physical presence of respondent is required in the transferee court it is open to him to appear through counsel. iv. Transferee court shall ensure that as far as possible all the cases are posted on the same dates. Tr.P.(C) No.251/2010 3 v. It is made clear that it will be open to the respondent to enforce the interim order if any passed in O.P.No.474 of 2010 in the transferee court. I.A.No.2040 of 2010 will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks