IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 11TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 20TH KARTHIKA 1933 Tr.P(C).No. 179 of 2011() ----------------------------------- O.P. NO.1381/2010 of FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER/RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------- M. SREEDEVI, W/O. SYAM. V.S., AGED 26 YEARS, KARTHIKA NIVAS, ERAMALLOOR. P.O., EZHUPUNNA VILLAGE, CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.SAJEEV RESPONDENT/PETITIONER ---------------------------------------- SYAM. V.S., S/O. V.U. SIVARAMAN, AGED 30 YEARS, VILAKKAPADY VEEDU, KARUVANNOOR. P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 711. BY ADV. SRI.A.T.ANILKUMAR, SMT.V.SHYLAJA. THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs Tr.P(C).No. 179 of 2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:- ANNEXURE 1: COPY OF THE PETITION IN O.P. NO. 1381/2010 ON THE FILE OF FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR. ANNEXURE 2: COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DATED 07/06/2010. ANNEXURE 3: COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 25/06/2010. ANNEXURE 4: COPY OF THE REPLY LAWYER NOTICE DATED 09/07/2010. ANNEXURE 5: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 31/07/2010. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Tr.P.(C) No.179 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of November, 2011. ORDER This petition is filed by the wife seeking transfer of O.P.No.1381 of 2010 from the Family Court, Thrissur to the Family Court, Ernakulam. That is a petition filed by the respondent-husband for divorce. It is stated that petitioner though is a resident of Cherthala, is working at Ernakulam and that she has to travel a long distance to contest the case. It will be convenient to the petitioner if the case is transferred to Ernakulam. 2. Petition is opposed by the respondent. It is contended that respondent belongs to Karuvannoor, in Thrissur District and that transfer of the case will cause much inconvenience to him. 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 taken the general view that in the matter of transfer of matrimonial proceedings inconvenience of the wife has to be considered. Petitioner though a resident of Cherthala is working at Ernakulam. She is aged about 26 years. She has to travel a long distance to contest the case. She may have to be accompanied by somebody which involves expense also. Tr.P(C)No.179/2011 2 4. From the above circumstances I am inclined to think that comparative hardship is more on petitioner if the request for transfer is not allowed. The inconvenience that may be caused to the respondent could be reduced by directing that he could appear in the Family Court, Ernakulam through counsel except when his physical presence is required. I am inclined to allow the request for transfer. Resultantly this petition is allowed as follows: (i) O.P.No.1381 of 2010 pending in the Family Court, Thrissur is withdrawn from that court and transferred to the Family Court, Ernakulam for trial and disposal. (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 for both parties. (iii) Respondent can appear in the transferee court through counsel except when his physical presence is required. I.A.No.1314 of 2011 will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks