1. The transfer petition is filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908(in short, 'C.P.C.'), seeking to transfer M.O.P.No.999/2021 (Annexure-1), from the Family Court, Palakkad, to the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram.

2. The petitioner’s case in brief, in the memorandum of transfer petition is that, she is the wife of the respondent. They have two children born in the wedlock. The children have attained majority. The petitioner is permanently residing and employed in the Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram. The respondent is an LIC Agent. The respondent has filed Annexure-1 against the petitioner, for a decree of divorce. It would be extremely difficult for the petitioner to travel all the way from Thiruvananthapuram to Palakkad to defend Annexure-1. On a comparison of the relative hardship, it would be difficult for the petitioner to travel from Thiruvananthapuram to Palakkad. Hence, the transfer petition.

3. The respondent has filed a counter affidavit, inter alia, denying the allegations in the transfer petition. He contends that he is not keeping good health. It would be difficult for him to travel from Palakkad to Thiruvananthapuram, to defend Annexure-1. Moreover, the petitioner is well employed and it would not be difficult for her to contest the case before the Family Court at Palakkad. Hence, the transfer petition may be dismissed.

4. Heard; Sri. R. Sunil Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Liju, M.P., the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

5. The law with respect to transfer of proceedings, particularly matrimonial disputes, is no longer res integra, in view of the categoric declaration of law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sumitha Sing V. Kumar Sanjay and another [(2001)10 SCC 41)] [LQ/SC/2001/563] , Mona Aresh Goel V. Aresh Satya Goel [(2000) 9 SCC 255] [LQ/SC/2000/157] , Vaishali Shridhar Jagtap V. Shridhar Vishwanath Jagtap [AIR 2016 SC 3584 [LQ/SC/2016/845] ], Santhini V. Vijaya Venkatesh [2017 (4) KLT 415 (SC)] Valsal Nisha v. Rajesh Soman Nair [2020(8) KLR 475]. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that it is the convenience of the woman and children that has to be looked into, while ordering the transfer of a case from one Court to another.

6. In the light of the law laid down in the afore-cited decisions, the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the petitioner is presently residing and employed in Thiruvananthapuram, I am of the view that due preference and weightage should be given to the petitioner, while considering the transfer petition. Hence, I am inclined to exercise the discretionary powers of this Court under Section 24 of the C.P.C. and order the transfer of Annexure-1. However, I make it clear that the respondent would be liberty to move the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram, and seek for the dispensation of his personal appearance.

In the result,

(i) The transfer petition is allowed, by ordering the transfer of M.O.P.No.999/2021 from the Family Court, Palakkad to the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram.

(ii) The respondent would be at liberty to move the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram and seek for dispensation of his personal appearance and also avail the video-conferencing facility, if he is indisposed.

(iii) The Registry shall forthwith forward a copy of the order to the Family Court, Palakkad with instructions to transmit the records in Annexure-1 to the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram.

(iv) The Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram shall, immediately on receipt of the records in Annexure-1, issue notice to the parties for their appearance.