IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD AUGUST 2011 / 12TH SRAVANA 1933 Tr.P(C).No. 30 of 2011() ------------------------ OP.NO.283/2010 of FAMILY COURT, ALAPPUZHA TO FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM ................................... PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------------- DENCY BABY.N. D/O.N.C.BABY, AGED 27 YEARS, HELLUVALIL, PANDALLUR, HILLS P.O., PANDIKKODU VIA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.T.RAJESH, SRI.P.BINNY JOSEPH. RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER: ----------------------------------------------- JOSEPH GEORGE, S/O.GEORGE JOSEPH, AGED 34, NALUPARA 2/196, THURAVASSERIL, CHAMPAKULAM P.O.,ALAPPUZHA-688 505. BY ADVS. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN, SRI.M.D.SASIKUMAR, SRI.GEORGE MATHEW. THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss Tr.P.C.NO.30/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEX.1: COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT. ANNEX.II: COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- Tr.P(C).No.30 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 03rd day of August, 2011 ORDER This petition is filed by the wife seeking transfer of O.P.No.283 of 2010 from Family Court, Alappuzha to Family Court, Malappuram. That is a petition filed by the respondent for a decree of dissolution of marriage. It is stated that petitioner is aged about 27 years and is a resident of Pandikkadu, in Malappuram District. According to the petitioner, she finds it difficult to travel all the distance from that place to Alappuzha where the case is pending. 2. Application is opposed by the respondent. It is contended that there is no justifiable reason for transfer. 3. 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 to be looked into. I stated about the age of petitioner, place of residence and the difficulty she has to suffer for travelling a long distance. Somebody has to accompany her. It involves huge Tr.P(C).No.30 of 2011 -: 2 :- expense. Having regard to these aspects I am inclined to think that comparative hardship is more on petitioner if the request for transfer is not allowed. The inconvenience of the respondent can be reduced by directing him to appear in the transferee court only when his physical presence is required. Having regard to the circumstances stated I am inclined to allow the petition. Resultantly this petition is allowed as follows: (i) O.P.No.283 of 2010 pending in Family Court, Alappuzha is withdrawn from that court and made over to Family Court, Malappuram. (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 the respondent is necessary it is open to him to appear through counsel in the transferee court. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-