IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2011 / 14TH SRAVANA 1933 TR.P(C).NO. 139 OF 2011() ------------------------------------- TO TRANSFER OP.253/2011 FROM FAMILY COURT, KANNUR TO FAMILY COURT, THALASSERY. PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------------- MONICA G., AGED 32 YEARS, D/O. GANGADHARAN, RESIDING AT 'POOJA', P.O.MUZHAPPILANGAD, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670 662. BY ADV. SRI.P.U.SHAILAJAN RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER: --------------------------------------------- ABHILASH SATHYANATH, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O. K.C.SATHYANATHAN, RESIDING AT 'ANIMA', KADACHIRA AMSOM, AADOOR DESOM, P.O.KADACHIRA, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670 621. THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Tr.P(C) No.139 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 05th day of August, 2011 O R D E R Respondent though served, there is no appearance. 2. This petition is filed by the wife seeking transfer of O.P. No.253 of 2011 from Family Court, Kannur to Family Court, Thalassery. That is a petition filed by the respondent- husband for custody of children. 3. Before formation of Family Court, Thalassery petitioner filed M.C. No.117 of 2011 for maintenance and respondent filed O.P. No.307 of 2011 for restitution of conjugal rights. After formation of Family Court, Thalassery the said cases were transferred to the said court. Learned counsel submitted that in M.C. No.117 of 2011 an ex parte order was passed, and that O.P. No.307 of 2011 is still pending in Family Court, Thalassery. It is stated that petitioner is residing in Muzhappilangad and respondent belongs to Kadachira. Petitioner finds it difficult to travel all the distance from her place of residence to Family Court, Kannur to contest the case. Hence the request for transfer. 4. The Supreme Court in Sumitha Singh v. Kumar Tr.P(C) No.139 of 2011 -: 2 :- 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. That of course does not mean that inconvenience of the husband has to be ignored. Having considered the relevant aspects I am inclined to think that the hardship is comparatively more on petitioner in case request for transfer is not allowed. The inconvenience that may be caused to the respondent can be reduced by permitting him to appear in the transferee court through counsel except when his physical presence is required. Hence I am inclined to allow the petition. Resultantly, the Petition is allowed in the following lines: (a) O.P. No.253 of 2011 pending in Family Court, Kannur is withdrawn from that court and made over to Family Court, Thalassery for trial and disposal. (b) The transferor court while transmitting records of the case to the transferee Tr.P(C) No.139 of 2011 -: 3 :- court shall fix the date for appearance of parties in the transferee court with due intimation to the counsel on both sides. (c) Family Court, Thalassery shall ensure that O.P. No.253 of 2011 (transferred to it) and O.P. No.307 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 respondent in the transferee court is necessary, he can appear through counsel. All pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv