(1.) Respondent though served in this proceeding has not appeared. Heard learned counsel for petitioner.
(2.) Petitioner-wife seeks transfer of O.P. No.194 of 2010 from Family Court, Thrissur to Family Court, Alappuzha. That is a petition filed by the respondent for restitution of conjugal rights. Petitioner has filed M.C. No.144 of 2009 in the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Cherthala claiming maintenance from the respondent and O.P(HMA) No.164 of 2010 in Family Court, Alappuzha seeking divorce. According to the petitioner on getting notice of M.C.No.144 of 2009 respondent filed O.P. No.194 of 2010 in Family Court, Thrissur as above stated. Petitioner is a resident of Cherthala. Respondent belongs to Engandiyoor, in Thrissur District. According to the petitioner it is difficult for her to travel all the distance from Cherthala to Family Court, Thrissur to contest case in that court.
(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. It is not disputed that M.C. No.144 of 2009 is pending in the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Cherthala and O.P(HMA) No.164 of 2010 in Family Court, Alappuzha. Respondent has not so far requested for transfer of those cases to any other courts on any ground. As stated by learned counsel, petitioner has to travel a long distance to contest the case in Family Court, Thrissur. It is the convenience of both parties that the cases pending in two Family Courts are brought to one court. On considering all relevant aspects I am persuaded to think that comparative hardship is more on petitioner if the transfer requested for is not allowed than the hardship respondent may have to suffer if request for transfer is allowed. Hence I am inclined to allow this petition. Resultantly, this petition is allowed in the following lines: