IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2010 / 23RD ASHADHA 1932 Tr.P(C).No. 118 of 2010() ------------------------- OP.743/2008 of FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM .................... PETITIONER/RESPONDENT IN O.P: ------------------------------------------------ ANUSREE,D/O.SWAMYNATHAN,AGED 24 YEARS, MATHANARI VEEDU NO.1,NEAR RAHMANIYA SCHOOL, P.O.MEDICAL COLLEGE,CHEVAYOOR,KOZHIKODE-8. BY ADV. SMT.LATHA PRABHAKARAN SRI.K.M.JAMALUDHEEN RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN O.P: -------------------------------- RAJESH,S/O.DAMODARAN,AGED 32 YEARS, AJITHA NILAYAM,ASARIPULPARAMBIL,P.O.MAVOOR, KOZHIKODE. ADV. SRI.K.V.SOHAN FOR R1 THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- Tr.P.(C).No.118 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 14th day of July, 2010 ORDER This petition is for transfer of O.P.No.743 of 2008 from Family Court, Kozhikode to Family Court, Malappuram. That is a petition filed by respondent/husband seeking divorce on various grounds including that petitioner/wife is having some mental abrasion. Petitioner states that on an application preferred by respondent/husband, Family Court, kozhikode had directed petitioner to be examined by the Medical Board and as per Annexure-D, letter the Medical Board wanted petitioner to be admitted in the Psychiatry Department of Calicut Medical College for a period of 10 days' for observation and examination. Petitioner challenged that order in W.P.C.No.20867 of 2009 and this court as per Annexure-E, judgment set aside the order and directed that after all evidence is adduced and evaluating the materials Family Court shall be liberty to issue proper and reasonable directions to get mental condition of petitioner evaluated, if there be need for such expert opinion. Petitioner states that two other proceedings initiated by her are also Tr.P.C.No.118 of 2010 : 2 : pending in Family Court, Kozhikode and since that court has has already taken a view of the alleged mental condition of petitioner, in fairness it is required to send the case to Family Court, Malappuram. Learned counsel for petitioner has addressed arguments regarding difficulties to which petitioner will be put if the same court continued with recording evidence on the point. Learned counsel for respondent would contend that there is no reason to transfer the case to Family Court, Malappuram when both the parties are residing at Kozhikode and it will not be convenient to both sides if the case is transferred to Family Court, Malappuram. It is also contended by learned counsel that there is no basis for the apprehension expressed by petitioner. 2. Merely for the reason that Family court, Kozhikode had passed Annexure-C order, I am not inclined to think that petitioner will be put to any difficulties in the course of trial of the case. I am sure, Judge of the Family Court concerned will record the evidence of the parties, assess it and as directed by this court in Annexure-E, judgment consider issue of collecting medical evidence regarding alleged mental condition of petitioner only if circumstances did warrant such a course. The apprehension of petitioner is not shown to be real or substantial Tr.P.C.No.118 of 2010 : 3 : so that this court should interfere in the matter and direct transfer of the case to Family Court, Malappuram. Resultantly this petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-