IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2010 / 20TH SRAVANA 1932 TR.P(C).NO. 81 OF 2010() ------------------------------------- OP.985/2009 OF FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM .................... PETITIONER ------------------- SHAHUL HAMEED,AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.YAHUTTY,PATNMAR VALAPPIL HOUSE, THAVANOOR P.O.,TIRUR TALUK,MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.O.V.MANIPRASAD SRI.P.K.KHALEEMUDHEEN SRI.P.G.SURESH SMT.K.VIDYA SRI.M.R.VIBIN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ UNAISA, AGED 20 YEARS, W/O.SHAHUL HAMEED, PUTHAN VALAPPIL HOUSE, KANMANAM P.O., TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM-676 551. ADV. SRI.JAMSHEED HAFIZ FOR R THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/08/2010 ALONG WITH TPC NO. 82 OF 2010 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Tr.P(C) Nos.81 & 82 of 2010 ==================================== Dated this the 11th day of August, 2010 O R D E R These petitions are filed by petitioner-husband seeking transfer of O.P. No.985 of 2009 and O.P. No.108 of 2010 from Family Court, Malappuram to Family Court, Thrissur on the ground of apprehension of not getting a fair trial. O.P. 985 of 2009 is filed by the respondent-wife for divorce while O.P. No.108 is filed by petitioner-husband for restitution of conjugal rights. Grievance of petitioner is that though there was a possibility of settlement between parties, Presiding Officer of the court concerned was not facilitating a settlement and instead was not in favour of that. It is stated that respondent-wife had filed M.C.No.114 of 2009 seeking maintenance from the petitioner and learned Judge allowed that application in toto directing petitioner to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month. It is also stated that respondent- wife had filed O.P. No.117 of 2009 to get back gold ornaments and if not that, its equivalent value in money and for other reliefs. That petition was allowed in favour of wife as prayed for. These circumstances persuaded petitioner to think that he may not get Tr.P(C) Nos.81 & 82 of 2010 -: 2 :- fair trial in the remaining cases. Learned counsel for respondent contends that there is no reason for any such genuine apprehension. According to the learned counsel petitioner is working as a Cabin Crew in Air India, is an income tax payee and hence award of Rs.10,000/- per moth towards maintenance to the respondent is justified on the facts and evidence. It is contended that decision in O.P. No.117 of 2009 for return of gold ornaments is justified on the facts and evidence. 2. It is not disputed that decisions rendered against petitioner are under challenge in this court. Those cases necessarily will have to take its course. The mere fact that two cases are decided in favour of respondent is no ground to think that petitioner will not get justice in the pending cases. Learned Judge has to and shall decide those cases in accordance with the facts and evidence of the cases. 3. So far as allegation regarding non-facilitating settlement between parties is concerned, grievance of petitioner is that though respondent was agreeable for reunion learned Judge was not agreeable for that. Prima facie I am not persuaded to think so. Some observations if any made in the course of proceeding (in the Family Court) cannot be taken as indicating Tr.P(C) Nos.81 & 82 of 2010 -: 3 :- view of the Presiding Officer particularly since Presiding Officer (of the Family Court) has a role of a conciliator of the dispute as well. This Court in Balachandran v. Meena (1999 [1] KLT 769) has stated that in such circumstances merely because Presiding Officer made some observations request for transfer cannot be entertained. Having regard to facts and circumstances and hearing counsel on both sides I am not persuaded to think that cases are required to be transferred out of Malappuram District. I direct learned Judge of Family court, Malappuram to decide the cases on the facts and evidence before him. Petitions are dismissed. Interlocutory Application Nos.692, 693, 1736 and 1745 of 2010 shall stand dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv