IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Tr.P(C).No. 239 of 2010()
1. SUMAN M.K., AGED 31, D/O.SARASWATHY,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. N.SATEESHKUMAR, S/O.S.NALINAKSHAN,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.C.S.MANILAL
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :06/09/2010
O R D E R
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.
--------------------------------------
Tr.P.(C) No.239 of 2010
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 6th day of September, 2010.
ORDER
Respondent though served remains absent in this petition. Heard counsel
for petitioner.
2. This petition is filed by the wife seeking transfer of O.P.(HMA)
No.761 of 2010 from Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram to Family Court,
Kottayam at Ettumanoor. That is a petition filed by the respondent/husband
seeking divorce. Petitioner/wife is aged 31 years and belongs to Vaikom, in
Kottayam District. She states that her parents are aged, paralysed and bed
ridden and there is nobody to accompany her to Thiruvananthapuram. It is
stated that the distance from her place of residence to Thiruvananthapuram is
about 120 kms. Respondent belongs to Kaniyapuram, in Thiruvananthapuram
District. In the circumstances transfer is requested for.
3. It is seen from Annexure-I (copy of O.P.(HMA) No.761 of 2010) that
respondent also admits that petitioner’s father is an old man, suffered fracture
about five years back and is suffering from very severe suffocation and other
ailments and is totally bed ridden for the past more than five years. According to
the petitioner, her father is aged 78 years. It is seen that petitioner is residing
far away from Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. According to the petitioner
she has to travel about 120 kms. to contest the case filed by respondent in
Tr.P.(C) No.239/2010
2
Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram.
4. 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. True that does not mean that inconvenience if any of the
husband need not be considered.
5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances I am persuaded to
think that comparative hardship on petitioner is higher if request for transfer is
not allowed than the hardship on respondent if the request for transfer is
allowed. Hence I am inclined to allow this petition.
Resultantly this petition is allowed in the following lines:
i. O.P. (HMA) No.761 of 2010 pending in Family Court,
Thiruvananthapuram is withdrawn from that court and made over to Family
Court, Kottayam, at Ettumanoor for trial and disposal.
Tr.P.(C) No.239/2010
3
ii. The transferor court shall, while transmitting records of the case to
the transferee court fix 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
is required in the transferee court it is open to him to appear through counsel.
I.A.No.1921 of 2010 will stand dismissed.
THOMAS P.JOSEPH,
Judge.
cks