IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS MONDAY, THE 11TH JANUARY 2010 / 21TH POUSHA 1931 Tr.Appeal(C).No. 14 of 2009 ------------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN TPC.280/2009 Dated 30/11/2009 .................... APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 in T.R.P(C): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. MAHESH, MANOJ BHAVAN, INCHAKKADU MURI, KALAYAPURAM VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. LEELA BHAI, MANOJ BHAVAN, INJAKKADU MURI, KALAYAPURAM VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER -------------------------------------------------- AMPILI A.V., AMPILI BHAVANAM, MANNADY P.O., ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA. ADV. SRI.G.UNNIKRISHNAN FOR R1 SRI.SHAIJU ANTONY FOR R1 THIS TRANSFER APPEAL (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - T.R.P.(C)Appeal No.14 OF 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 11th day of January 2010 JUDGMENT Basheer, J. An order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure directing transfer of a petition pending before the Family Court, Kottarakkara to the file of the Family Court, Thiruvalla is under challenge in this appeal filed under Section 5 of the High Court Act. 2. Relevant facts may be briefly noticed: 3. Respondent herein, the wife of the appellant, filed O.P.6/2009 before the Family Court, Kottarakkara against the appellants, who are her husband and mother-in-law respectively, seeking return of certain gold ornaments which allegedly belong to her. Later, the wife filed O.P.(HMA) 635/09 before the Family court, Thiruvalla for dissolution of the marriage under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 4. While these two matters were pending before the respective courts, the wife filed the above transfer petition before the learned Single Judge contending that it would not be safe for her to go to Kottarakkara. She stated that on July 7, 2009 while she was returning from the Family Court, Kottarakkara, she was confronted by two youngsters, presumably employed by her husband, near the Kottarakkara KSRTC bus station. They T.R.P.(C)Appeal No.14 OF 2009 :: 2 :: abused her in filthy language and threatened her with dire consequences if she continued to prosecute the case before the Family Court. It is also on record that the respondent - wife has filed a complaint against the appellants for alleging commission of the offence under Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code. In the transfer petition she therefore prayed that the case now pending on the file of the Family Court, Kottarakkara be transferred to the Family Court, Thiruvalla to be tried and disposed of along with O.P.(HMA)635/09. 5. The learned Single Judge, after considering the rival contentions of the parties, took the view that the prayer made by the wife was only just and reasonable in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. The petition for transfer was thus allowed. 6. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellants that respondent had filed O.P.6/09 before the Kottarakkara Family Court alleging that the cause of action for the above case had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of that court. But surprisingly the respondent chose the Family Court, Thiruvalla to be the venue of her next litigation. Learned counsel contends that this indicates the sinister motive of the respondent, which is only to harass the appellants. 7. Admittedly, going by the address shown in the cause title of the transfer petition, the respondent is residing at Adoor which falls within T.R.P.(C)Appeal No.14 OF 2009 :: 3 :: the territorial jurisdiction of Thiruvalla. It may be true that she had filed the earlier petition O.P.6/09 before the Family Court Kottarakkara for the reason that the appellants are residing within the limits of that court. Anyhow, the petition filed for divorce before the Thiruvalla Court cannot be said to be suffering from the vice of lack of jurisdiction. In any view of the matter, the crucial question is whether the reason stated while seeking transfer is wholly untenable or not. In our view, the answer has to be in the negative. Respondent has raised a specific contention that she was once tried to be assaulted by two youngsters apparently at the behest of her husband. 8. Having carefully perused the entire materials available on record and having considered the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, we do not find any reason to interfere with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. There is no merit in any of the contentions raised by the appellant. Appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case there will be no order as to cost. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE jes