IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2009 / 31ST ASHADHA 1931 Tr.P(C).No. 102 of 2009() ------------------------- OP.175/2009 of FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD .................... PETITIONER: -------------------- PRAJU, D/O. PRABHAKARAN, AGED 23 YEARS, KARIVANI (H), GANDHI NAGAR, KOCHI -20, NOW TEMPORARILY RESIDING AT CHUDUVALATHOOR, POTHUVAL JUNCTION, SHORNUR, OTTAPPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADVS.MR.MATHAI VARKEY MUTHIRENTHY, SMT.AJITA PAUL. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- NISHANTH, S/O LATE NARAYANAN, AGED 31 YEARS, UPPATHINKATTIL (H), THALAKASSERY POST, (VIA) THRITHALA, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, NOW EMPLOYED AT AMWAY INDIA ENT. PVT. LTD., D. NO. 29/783,VYTTILA, COCHIN -19 AND RESIDING AT VYTTILA. BY ADV. MR.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/07/2009 ALONG WITH TPC NO. 140 OF 2009 AND TPC NO. 141 OF 2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Tr.P.(C) Nos.102, 140 & 141 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 22nd July, 2009 ORDER The above three petitions have been filed under Section 24 of the C.P.C. Parties are in common in all the three petitions, wife and husband. The wife has filed Tr.P.C.No.102/09 seeking transfer of O.P.No.175/09 pending on the file of the Family Court, Palakkad, filed by the husband for declaring him as guardian over the only child born out of their wedlock, namely, Pavithra, aged three years. The husband has filed the other two petitions, Tr.P.C.Nos.140 and 141/09, the former for transferring the O.P.No.1125/07 and the latter O.P.No.1138/07, both pending before the Family Court, Ernakulam. The wife has filed O.P.No.1125/07 for dissolution of the marriage and O.P.No.1138/07 for the return of her gold ornaments and valuables allegedly retained by the husband. 2. I heard the learned counsel on both sides. The child is having temporary residence only at Shornur and all questions relating to her guardianship, custody etc. require to be adjudicated by the Family Court wherein the other two petitions preferred by the wife, the mother of the child are pending is the submission of the learned counsel for the wife. Having regard to Section 9 of the Guardians and Tr.P.C.102, 140, 141/09 - 2 - Wards Act, 1890 which stipulates the jurisdiction of the court to decide the question of guardianship, custody etc. of the minor shall be with the District Court having jurisdiction in the place where the minor ordinarily resides. I am unable to accept the submission made by the learned counsel for the wife for transfer of O.P.No.175/09 from the Family Court, Palakkad to the Family Court, Ernakulam. However, in case, the wife, the mother of the child shifts her residence to Ernakulam with the child, it is open to her to seek transfer of the above petition to the Family Court at Ernakulam satisfying that at that point of time ordinarily place of residence of the child is within the jurisdiction of that court. Subject to the observation as indicated above, Tr.P.C.No.102/09 is closed. 3. The husband has filed the other two petitions contending that the parties are residing at Shornur and so much so, it will be advantageous to the parties to have the trial of the two petitions preferred by the wife at the Family Court, Palakkad transferring the petitions from the Family Court, Ernakulam. The Head Office of his employer alone is situated at Ernakulam, but he is doing his business activities within the jurisdiction of Family Court, Palakkad is the further submission made by the learned counsel for the husband for Tr.P.C.102, 140, 141/09 - 3 - transfer as prayed for. Resisting the request so made, learned counsel for the wife submitted that all steps are complete in the cases and only evidence of the parties require to be adduced for disposal of the cases. The parties last resided together in Ernakulam and the cause shown by the petitioner that he is employed at a different place away from Ernakulam, according to the learned counsel, is incorrect. Husband is still continuing his employment at Ernakulam is the submission of the learned counsel for the wife. Taking notice that the cases filed in 2007 are now in an advanced stage, I find, it will not be proper to transfer these cases to the Family Court, Palakkad as desired by the husband. Admittedly, conciliation proceedings are over, which having not yielded a reunion of the parties, what is required is a speedy disposal of the proceedings. Normally, the convenience of the wife when she has to attend a three year old child has to be given preference on the question of transfer the difficulties that are likely to be faced by her in engaging a new counsel at a new place if the cases are transferred may also deserve to be taken into account. She being of the weaker sex and estranged from her husband may find it difficult to make suitable arrangements if the cases are transferred to a new station. Taking all those aspects, I Tr.P.C.102, 140, 141/09 - 4 - find the request of the husband for transfer of the petitions to the Family Court, Palakkad which is seen filed nearly two years after the institution of the petitions cannot be entertained. The Transfer Petition Nos.140 and 141 of 2009 are dismissed. srd S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE