IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 25TH JULY 2011 / 3RD SRAVANA 1933 Tr.P(C).No. 191 of 2011() ----------------------------------- OP.40/2011 of FAMILY COURT,THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER/RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------- SUJA ALEXANDER,D/O.ALEXANDER, MANGATTU HOUSE ,MADAPPALLY PO, CHANGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.M.R.SARIN SRI.BIJU GOPAL RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER -------------------------------------------- JIJO JOHN,S/O.LATE JOHN, CHUZHIKUNNEL HOUSE,PATTIPARAMB PO,APPEKADU THIRUWILVAMALA THRISSUR DISTRICT. 680001. THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss TRP(C) NO.191/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES A1:- COPY OF THE OP. NO.40/2011 ON FILE OF FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR. A2:- COPY OF THE MC. 181/11 ON FILE OF FAMILY COURT KOTTAYAM. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES NIL:- TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Tr.P.(C) No.191 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of July, 2011. ORDER Petitioner, wife aged about 26 years seeks transfer of O.P.No.40 of 2011 from Family Court, Thrissur to Family Court, Kottayam, at Ettumanoor. That Original Petition was filed by the respondent-husband seeking restitution of conjugal rights. Petitioner, in the meantime filed M.C.No.181 of 2011 in Family Court, Kottayam, at Ettumanoor claiming maintenance for herself and her eight month old child. It is stated that petitioner is residing at Changanacherry, along with her aged parents, and that there is no nobody to accompany her to Thrissur. She has to travel the long distance from Changanacherry to Thrissur to contest the case. In the circumstances the request for transfer. 2. Though respondent is served sufficiently early, there is no response. 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 held that while considering request for transfer of matrimonial proceedings convenience of the wife has to be looked into. True that does not mean that inconvenience if any of the oher party need not be considered. Tr.P.(C) No.191/2011 2 4. It is seen that the petitioner-wife is aged 26 years and residing at Changanacherry with her aged parents. There is nobody to accompany her to Family Court, Thrissur to contest the case and taking somebody with her involves expense also. Moreover, Family Court, Thrissur is at a far distant place from her residence. M.C.No.181 of 2011 filed by the petitioner is now pending in Family Court, Kottayam, at Ettumanoor. In the circumstances, considering the hardship that may be caused to the petitioner if the request for transfer is not allowed, I am inclined to allow the request. The difficulty that may be caused to the respondent can be reduced by directing that he need appear in the transferee court only as and when his physical presence is required. Resultantly this petition is allowed as follows: (i) O.P.No.40 of 2011 pending in Family Court, Thrissur is withdrawn from that court and transferred to Family Court, Kottayam, at Ettumanoor for trial and disposal. (ii) The transferor court while transmitting records of the case to the transferee court shall fix date for appearance of parties in the transferee court with due intimation to the counsel for both parties. (iii) The transferee court shall ensure that the Original Petition being transferred to that court and M.C.No.181 of 2011 (pending in that court) Tr.P.(C) No.191/2011 3 are posted as far as possible on the same date. (iv) It is made clear that except when physical presence of respondent in the transferee court is necessary he can appear through counsel. . I.A.No.1427 of 2011 will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks