IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Tr.P(C).No. 107 of 2010()
1. BINDHU, AGED 31 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. RANJITH BABU, AGED 37,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :22/11/2010
O R D E R
THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.
====================================
Tr.P(C) No.107 of 2010
====================================
Dated this the 22nd day of November, 2010
O R D E R
This petition is filed by the wife aged about 31 years seeking
transfer of O.P. No.268 of 2010 from Family Court, Kozhikode to
Family Court, Kannur. That is a petition filed by the respondent-
husband for restitution of conjugal rights. Petitioner states that she
finds it difficult to travel the distance of more than 150 kms from
Kannur to Family Court, Kozhikode and contest the case.
2. Notice of the petition was ordered to the respondent
but it was returned with the endorsement, ‘left, not known’.
Thereon I directed that petitioner may serve notice on the counsel
for respondent in the trial court. Learned counsel for petitioner
submitted that though notice was served on counsel for
respondent in the trial court, he has refused to accept it. Thereon
I directed petitioner to take necessary steps to serve notice on
respondent. Petitioner applied for paper publication and that was
allowed. Paper publication is produced. There is no appearance
of respondent.
Tr.P(C) No.107 of 2010
-: 2 :-
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 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. Petitioner is a resident of Uliyil, in Kannur District
while respondent belongs to Nellikod amsom in Kozhikode Taluk.
The case is now pending in Family Court, Kozhikode. Petitioner
has to travel more than 150 kms from her place of residence to
Family Court, Kozhikode to contest the case. Petitioner is aged
about 31 years. It will be difficult for her to travel all the
distance from her place of residence to Kozhikode to contest the
case. She may have to be accompanied by some of her relatives.
That involves expenses also. Having considered the comparative
hardship of the parties I am persuaded to think that hardship is
more on petitioner if request for transfer is not allowed. The
inconvenience if any caused to the respondent can be reduced to
some extent by permitting him to appear through counsel except
when his physical presence is necessary. Hence I am inclined to
allow this petition.
Tr.P(C) No.107 of 2010
-: 3 :-
Resultantly, this petition is allowed in the following lines:
(i) O.P.No.268 of 2010 pending in Family
Court, Kozhikode is withdrawn from that court and
made over to Family Court, Kannur.
(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 on both
sides.
(iii) It is made clear that except when
physical presence of respondent in the transferee
court is necessary he can appear through counsel.
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE.
vsv