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. 116 OF 2011() ------------------------------------- TO TRANSFER OP.1108/2010 FROM FAMILY COURT, ALAPPUZHA TO FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- GREESHMA SOMAN,OM KRIPA,TC 11/2204(2) ALOUMMOODU,NALANCHIRA PO,ULLOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.S.SREEDEV RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- ULLAS UDAYA RAVI, ULSAH BHAVAN,CHERUKOL PO, MAVELIKKARA,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 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.116 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 05th day of August, 2011 O R D E R Respondent though served, there is no appearance. 2. Petitioner-wife seeks transfer of O.P. No.1108 of 2010 from Family Court, Alappuzha to Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. That is a petition filed by the respondent- husband for restitution of conjugal rights. Petitioner has filed O.P (HMA) No.399 of 2011 in Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram for dissolution of marriage. Learned counsel submits that petitioner is residing at Nalanchira, in Ulloor Village and is a Post Graduate student in the Women's College, Thiruvananthapuram. It is also stated that apart from the difficulty to travel upto Family Court, Alappuzha she is scared to go to that place since a criminal case is registered against 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 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 Tr.P(C) No.116 of 2011 -: 2 :- be ignored. It is stated that petitioner is aged 24 years and is residing at Nalanchira, in Ulloor Village. It is also stated that she is a Post Graduate student in Women's College, Thiruvananthapuram and she finds difficult to travel all the distance from her place of residence to Family Court, Alappuzha to contest the case. Having regard to the circumstances stated 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.1108 of 2010 pending in Family Court, Alappuzha is withdrawn from that court and made over to Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram for trial and disposal. (b) The transferor court while transmitting Tr.P(C) No.116 of 2011 -: 3 :- 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 on both sides. (c) Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram shall ensure that O.P. No.1108 of 2010 (transferred to it) and O.P(HMA) No.399 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.