SEETHA LAKSHMI Vs. SAJU MOHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though parties were sent to the Mediation Centre for settlement, the case is returned to this court as no settlement could be reached.

(2.) This petition is filed by the petitioner/wife seeking transfer of O.P.No.891 of 2009 filed by respondent/husband for restitution of conjugal rights from Family Court, Ernakulam to Family court, Alappuzha. It is stated that petitioner is a resident of Cherthala and that her only brother having expired, her widowed mother, is not in such a state of mind to accompany her to Family Court, Ernakulam. There is nobody else to accompany her. She finds it difficult to come to Ernakulam to contest the case. It is stated that respondent is a resident of Ernakulam. He is working in Manorama News Channel at Aroor, in Alappuzha District and hence transfer of the case to Alappuzha will not cause any inconvenience to him. Learned counsel for respondent contends that petitioner is working in the F.C.I, Anagamaly and she is daily coming from her place of residence to that place. So she will not have difficulty to attend the court at Ernakulam. Learned counsel for petitioner states that petitioner got a transfer to Angamaly as desired by the respondent and after relationship was broken she has requested for transfer back to F.C.I, Alappuzha.

(3.) It is not disputed that petitioner is a resident of Cherthala in Alappuzha District while respondent is working at Aroor, in Alappuzha District. It is true that petitioner is presently working in F.C.I, Angamaly but that is subject to transfer. That, she is coming from her place of residence to her place of occupation is different from her attending the court alone to contest the case. She has to face the estranged husband. It is quite natural that she may require somebody to accompany her. She states that she has only the widowed mother and on account of the death of the only son she has some difficulties and is unable to travel. The Supreme Court in Sumitha Singh Vs. Sanjay Kumar & Another (AIR 2002 SC 396) and Arti Rani Lrs. Pinki Devi and Another Vs. Darmendra Kumar Gupta (2008 (9) SCC 353) stated that while considering request for transfer in matrimonial proceedings convenience of the wife has to be looked into. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case I am inclined to think that comparative hardship of petitioner/wife if the case continued to be at Ernakulam is much more than the hardship that respondent may be put to if the said case is not transferred to Family Court, Alappuzha. Hence I am inclined to allow the transfer requested for. If Family Court, ALappuzha has got a camp sitting at Cherthala, parties or any of them can request the court to post the case at the Camp court at Cherthala. Resultantly this petition is allowed in the following lines: