IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DECEMBER 2008 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Tr.P(Crl.).No. 84 of 2008() --------------------------- MC.377/2007 of FAMILY COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. SELISHIA, AGED 25 YEARS, D/O.THANKAPPAN, KIZHAKKEDATH HOUSE, PERINJANAM VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. AKASH, AGED 3 1/2 YEARS, (MINOR), REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN, SELISHIA, AGED 25 YEARS, D/O.THANKAPPAN, KIZHAKKEDATH HOUSE, PERINJANAM VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL) SMT.R.RAJITHA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- SREEJITH, S/O.SASI, OLIPARAMBIL HOUSE, NJARAKKAL, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. DIJI K. DASAN THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/12/2008, ALONG WITH TPC NO. 285 OF 2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - T.P.(Crl).No. 84 of 2008 & Tr.P.(C) No. 285 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 10th day of December, 2008 O R D E R These transfer petitions are filed by the petitioners, who are the wife and child of the respondent. Three petitions are pending before the Family Court, Ernakulam. The first is O.P. 1265 of 2007 filed by the husband for restitution of conjugal rights, the second, M.C. 377 of 2007, filed by the wife claiming maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and the third, O.P. 1567 of 2007, filed by the wife for return of ornaments, cash etc. 2. The petitioners now pray that there may be a direction to transfer these cases to the Family Court, Thrissur, which is nearer to the house of the petitioners than the Family Court, Ernakulam, which is much farther. By catching one bus the petitioners can reach the Family Court, Thrissur, whereas they will have to travel by two buses to reach the Family Court, Ernakulam. In these circumstances it is prayed that there may be an order to transfer the cases to the Family Court, Thrissur. T.P.(Crl).No. 84 of 2008 & Tr.P.(C) No. 285 of 2008 2 3. Notice was given to the respondent/husband. He has entered appearance. He stoutly opposes the applications for transfer. He submits that there is absolutely no justification in the prayer for transfer. The petitioners themselves have filed two of the three petitions before the Family Court, Ernakulam. At this juncture when all pre-trial procedures are complete and the matter need only be taken up for trial, there is absolutely no necessity to direct any transfer. It is, in these circumstances, prayed that the prayer for transfer may be rejected. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that as a matter of fact even the petitioners shall have no specific advantage by a direction for transfer to the Family Court, Thrissur as the petitioners are residing at Kodungalloor taluk and the Family Court, Ernakulam and Family Court, Thrissur are situated roughly equi-distant from the place of residence of the petitioners. The learned counsel for the respondent further points out that as the proceedings have reached the fag end, there is absolutely no need to direct transfer as prayed for. T.P.(Crl).No. 84 of 2008 & Tr.P.(C) No. 285 of 2008 3 4. I have considered all the relevant circumstances. I take note of the fact that the petitioners themselves have filed two of the three proceedings before the Family Court, Ernakulam. The matter has reached the stage where pre-trial proceedings are complete. I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that no direction for transfer need be issued. But there shall be a direction to the learned Judge of the Family Court now to expeditiously complete the proceedings in these three pending matters and ensure that the personal presence of the petitioners is not insisted unless absolutely essential for the progress of the case. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are apprehensive that the child petitioner may have to be produced before the Family Court on future dates of posting. The learned counsel for the respondent, after taking instructions, submits that though there is a direction that visitation right of the respondent must be secured, the direction issued is only to ensure that the husband gets visitation rights at a house close to the present residence of the petitioners. That submission of the learned counsel for the respondent T.P.(Crl).No. 84 of 2008 & Tr.P.(C) No. 285 of 2008 4 is taken note of and recorded. 6. These transfer petitions are accordingly dismissed subject to the above observations/directions to the Family Court. (R. BASANT) Judge tm T.P.(Crl).No. 84 of 2008 & Tr.P.(C) No. 285 of 2008 5 R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - T.P.(Crl).Nos. 84 & 285 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 1st day of December, 2008 O R D E R Both counsel want time to ascertain whether the Family Court hold sitting at N. Parur so that the cases can be directed to be taken up at the sitting of the Family Court at N.Parur. 2. In the meantime, call for a report from the learned Judge of the Family Court whether the proceedings between the parties in M.C.377 of 2007, O.P. 1265 and 1567 of 2007 can be taken up for consideration and disposal at the sitting of the Family Court at N.Parur. The report of the learned Judge must reach this Court by 9.12.2008. Call on 10.12.2008. T.P.(Crl).No. 84 of 2008 & Tr.P.(C) No. 285 of 2008 6 (R. BASANT) Judge tm