IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 22ND NOVEMBER 2010 / 1ST AGRAHAYANA 1932 TR.P(C).NO. 107 OF 2010() -------------------------------------- OP.268/2010 OF FAMILY COURT,KOZHIKODE .................... PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------ BINDHU, AGED 31 YEARS, D/O. KUMJANMBU NAIR, M.N. KANDI VEEDU,PADIKACHALIL ULIYIL P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT SRI.K.N.ABHILASH RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER. ---------------------------------------------- RANJITH BABU, AGED 37, S/O. GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, GEETHA NIVAS, NELLIKOD AMSOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Tr.P(C) No.107 of 2010 ==================================== Dated this the 22nd day of November, 2010 O R D E R This petition is filed by the wife aged about 31 years seeking transfer of O.P. No.268 of 2010 from Family Court, Kozhikode to Family Court, Kannur. That is a petition filed by the respondent- husband for restitution of conjugal rights. Petitioner states that she finds it difficult to travel the distance of more than 150 kms from Kannur to Family Court, Kozhikode and contest the case. 2. Notice of the petition was ordered to the respondent but it was returned with the endorsement, 'left, not known'. Thereon I directed that petitioner may serve notice on the counsel for respondent in the trial court. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that though notice was served on counsel for respondent in the trial court, he has refused to accept it. Thereon I directed petitioner to take necessary steps to serve notice on respondent. Petitioner applied for paper publication and that was allowed. Paper publication is produced. There is no appearance of respondent. Tr.P(C) No.107 of 2010 -: 2 :- 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 be ignored. Petitioner is a resident of Uliyil, in Kannur District while respondent belongs to Nellikod amsom in Kozhikode Taluk. The case is now pending in Family Court, Kozhikode. Petitioner has to travel more than 150 kms from her place of residence to Family Court, Kozhikode to contest the case. Petitioner is aged about 31 years. It will be difficult for her to travel all the distance from her place of residence to Kozhikode to contest the case. She may have to be accompanied by some of her relatives. That involves expenses also. Having considered the comparative hardship of the parties I am persuaded to think that hardship is more on petitioner if request for transfer is not allowed. The inconvenience if any caused to the respondent can be reduced to some extent by permitting him to appear through counsel except when his physical presence is necessary. Hence I am inclined to allow this petition. Tr.P(C) No.107 of 2010 -: 3 :- Resultantly, this petition is allowed in the following lines: (i) O.P.No.268 of 2010 pending in Family Court, Kozhikode is withdrawn from that court and made over to Family Court, Kannur. (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 on both sides. (iii) It is made clear that except when physical presence of respondent in the transferee court is necessary he can appear through counsel. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv