Velayudhan vs Dhanya

Thomas P. Joseph, J.—This petition is for transfer of O.P. No. 217 of 2012 from the Family Court at Thalassery to the Family Court, Palakkad. That is a petition filed by the respondent against her husband (1st respondent in O.P. No. 217 of 2012) and the petitioner (2nd respondent in O.P. No. 217 of 2012), her father-in-law for recovery of money and other reliefs. The husband of the respondent is working abroad. According to the petitioner, he is aged about 75 years and is a chronic TB patient. He has much difficulty to travel upto Thalassery. In the circumstances the request for transfer.

Learned counsel has contended that petitioner is a chronic TB patient and that the documents produced revealed that. It is also pointed out that petitioner is aged 75 years.

The Supreme Court in Sumita Singh Vs. Kumar Sanjay and Another, and Arti Rani @ Pinki Devi and Another Vs. Dharmendra Kumar Gupta, has taken the view that so far as request for transfer of matrimonial proceedings are concerned, convenience of the wife is to be looked into. True, that is not an invariable or inflexible rule. In this case, as the learned counsel submits respondent, wife is aged 29 years and is doing her Ph. D. The husband of the respondent is abroad and hence he is not very much concerned whether the trial takes place at Thalassery or Palakkad. Then the difficulty is only of the petitioner, father-in-law of the respondent. It is not as if having regard to the nature of claim made by the respondent, petitioner has to be present in the Family Court, Thalassery every now and then. Petitioner can appear through counsel except when his physical presence is needed. If necessary and if the law permits, petitioner can apply to the Family Court, Thalassery for recording his evidence through commission. It is open to the petitioner to appoint a power of attorney to conduct the case on his behalf. I am inclined to think that directing the respondent-wife aged 29 years to travel from Thalassery to Palakkad is harsh. Her study will be affected. She has to be accompanied by somebody which involves expense. I am inclined to think, on a consideration of all relevant facts that the comparative hardship is more. Hence the request for transfer cannot be entertained.

Resultantly this petition is dismissed. But it is made clear that petitioner could appear through counsel in the Family Court, Thalassery except when his physical presence is absolutely necessary.

All pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed.