IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 2ND AUGUST 2011 / 11TH SRAVANA 1933 TR.P(C).NO. 168 OF 2011() ------------------------------------- TO TRANSFER OP(DIV) NO.186/2011 FROM FAMILY COURT, THIRUVALLA TO FAMILY COURT, ALAPPUZHA .................... PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------------- JANCY CHACKO @ THRESSIAMMA, AGED 53 YEARS, D/O. AUGUSTINE JOSEPH, THAYYILCHIRA HOUSE, MULLACKAL.P.O., ALAPPUZHA, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT THEKKEPARAMBIL, THIRUMALA WARD, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR SMT.BHAVANA VELAYUDHAN SMT.T.J.SEEMA RESPONDENT-PETITIONER: ---------------------------------------- VARKEY CHACKO KUNJUKUNJU, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O. VARKEY VARGHESE, CHALUMKAROTTU HOUSE, KONNI.P.O., KONNI-MANGARAM MURI, KONNI VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689691. ADV. SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW FOR R THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Tr.P(C) No.168 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 02nd day of August, 2011 O R D E R This petition is filed by petitioner-wife seeking transfer of O.P(Div.) No.186 of 2011 from Family Court, Thiruvalla to Family Court, Alappuzha. That is a petition filed by the respondent- husband seeking dissolution of marriage. Petitioner states that she is a chronic Asthma patient, staying alone in a rented house at Thirumala Ward in Alappuzha though her paternal house is at Alappuzha. 2. Petition is opposed by respondent. Respondent aged 59 years is residing in Konni Village, in Pathanamthitta. If the case is transferred, he has to travel a long distance. No doubt if case is transferred to Family Court, Alappuzha respondent has to travel a further distance of about 40 kms. In other words respondent has to travel 80 kms from his place of residence to Family Court, Alappuzha to contest the case. 3. The Supreme Court in Sumitha Singh v. Kumar Sanjay and another (AIR 2002 SC 396) and Arti Rani v. Tr.P(C) No.168 of 2011 -: 2 :- 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. I have considered the rival contentions. It is submitted that it is the second marriage of both parties and now whatever be reason thereof they are unable to pull on together. Respondent has therefore sought dissolution of marriage. Petitioner is aged 53 years and residing at Mullackal in Alappuzha. Respondent is aged 59 years and is residing at Pathanamthitta. 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. 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. Hence I am inclined to allow the petition. Resultantly, the Petition is allowed in the following lines: (a) O.P(Div.) No.186 of 2011 pending Tr.P(C) No.168 of 2011 -: 3 :- in Family Court, Thiruvalla is withdrawn from that court and made over to Family Court, Alappuzha for trial and disposal. (b) 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. (c) 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