BINDU Vs. FIJO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is filed by the wife for transfer of O.P. No.605 of 2010 filed by her for divorce in Family Court, Thrissur. She wants the case to be transferred to Family Court, Ernakulam. Reasons stated is that she is staying at Edappally in Kochi and working in a private firm at Ernakulam. Learned counsel states that petitioner's father is no more and that there is nobody to accompany her to attend Family Court, Thrissur to contest the case.The case happened to be filed in Family Court, Thrissur considering the jurisdictional issue.

(2.) 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. It is not controverted that petitioner is a resident of Edappally, in Kochi and that she is working in a private firm at Ernakulam. Respondent is a resident of Parappur, in Thrissur District. Having considered comparative hardship of the parties I am inclined to think thathardshipis more onpetitioner if transfer requested for is not allowed than the inconvenience that may be caused to the respondent if transfer is allowed. Hence I am inclined to allow this petition. Resultantly, petition is allowed in the following lines: