IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Tr.P(C).No. 243 of 2010()
1. C.S.PADMINI, AGED 46 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. P.S.VIJAYAN,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.K.R.VINOD
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :20/08/2010
O R D E R
THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.
====================================
Tr.P(C) No.243 of 2010
====================================
Dated this the 20th day of August, 2010
O R D E R
Respondent is served but he is not responding.
2. This petition is filed by the wife seeking transfer of O.P
(HMA) No.669 of 2010 from Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor
to Family Court, Ernakulam. That is a petition filed by the
respondent for dissolution of marriage. Though subsequently
petitioner has filed M.C. No.203 of 2010 in Family Court,
Ernakulam seeking maintenance from respondent. Petitioner
states that she is a resident of Thevara and is suffering from
tuberculosis. To support that contention she has produced
Ext.P2, discharge summary. She is unable to travel the long
distance of about 80 kms from her residence to Family Court,
Kottayam at Ettumanoor. Respondent is a resident
Thalayolaparambu and hence transfer of the case (from Family
Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor) to Family Court, Ernakulam will
not 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.
Tr.P(C) No.243 of 2010
-: 2 :-
Dharmendra Kumar Gupta ([2008] 9 SCC 353) held 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. Having regard to the facts and circumstances stated
above and considering the comparative hardship of petitioner if
the case continued in Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor I am
satisfied that the inconvenience which petitioner would suffer if
the case is not transferred outweighs inconvenience respondent
has to suffer if the case is transferred. It is shown by Ext.P2
that petitioner is suffering from tuberculosis. She has to travel
long distance to conduct the case in Family Court, Kottayam at
Ettumanoor. Transfer of the case to Ernakulam will not cause
much inconvenience to the respondent since he is a resident of
Thalayolaparambu. In the circumstance I am inclined to allow this
petition.
Resultantly this petition is allowed in the following lines.
(i) O.P(HMA) No.669 of 2009 pending
in Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor is
withdrawn from that court and made over to Family
Court, Ernakulam.
Tr.P(C) No.243 of 2010
-: 3 :-
(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
O.P. (HMA) No.669 of 2009 and M.C.No.203 of 2010
are posted on the same dates, as far as possible.
(iv) It is made clear that except when
physical presence of respondent in court is necessary
he can appear through counsel.
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE.
vsv