IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 31ST JULY 2009 / 9TH SRAVANA 1931 Tr.P(C).No. 115 of 2009() ---------------------------------- OP.1245/2008 of FAMILY COURT, ALAPPUZHA .................... PETITIONER ----------------- JUDY.P.A., AGED 39, S/O.ALEX, PULICKAL, FORT KOCHI. BY ADV. MR.G.KRISHNAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. SUMA, AGED 30, D/O.FRANCIS, AZHICKAL, PATTANAKKAD VILLAGE, VETTACKAL. 2. ALEX ANTONY, AGED 11/4, S/O.JUDY, REPRESETED HIS MOTHER SUMA, AZHICKAL, PATTANAKKAD VILLAGE, VETTACKAL. BY THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- Tr.P.C.No.115 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of July, 2009 O R D E R This transfer petition is filed under Section 24 CPC. Petitioner is the husband and respondent, the wife. The wife has filed two petitions one for claiming maintenance as M.C.No.158/2008 and the other for return of ornaments and valuables as O.P.No.1245/2008, both petitions are pending before the Family Court, Alappuzha. Husband has filed this petition for transfer of those petitions to the Family Court, Ernakulam. 2. Notice of the application was issued to the respondent, but, service could not be effected. Pursuant to direction issued by this Court, notice was served on the counsel appearing for the respondent in the court below and a memo evidencing such service has been filed. Service is found sufficient. 3. I heard the counsel for the petitioner. 4. Petitioner is employed in a private company. His income is very meagre. No inconvenience will be caused to the Tr.P.C.No.115 of 2009 2 wife, if a transfer is ordered to the Family Court, Ernakulam as the distance to that court is more or less equal to the distance to the Family Court, Alappuzha, and since he has to appear before the Family Court, Alappuzha very often he cannot attend to his work on a number of days and thereby suffer from loss of wages etc., are the grounds canvassed to sustain the request for transfer of the two petitions filed by the wife from the Family Court, Alappuzha to the Family Court, Ernakulam. One of the two petitions filed by the wife is a claim for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C imputing neglect on the part of the husband to maintain her and also a child born out of their wedlock, aged 1½ years, on the plea lack of her sustenance in life. Spouses have a child aged 1½ years and that infant is, admittedly, under the care and custody of the wife, the mother. The child is not getting the love and affection from the father and she depends solely on the mother, wife, is a material circumstance that has significant value in adjudging the merit of the transfer. If the wife is directed to appear before the Family Court, Ernakulam, leaving behind the child unattended, it is likely to have disastrous Tr.P.C.No.115 of 2009 3 consequences and sometimes even psychological impact on the child affecting her growth and wellbeing. I am not impressed by the submission that the Family Court, Ernakulam and the Family Court, Alappuzha are situate at equal distance from the residence of the wife. May be, the wife for eking her livelihood, when she is not provided by the husband, is engaged in some work, close to her residence. She has not appeared and contested the proceedings cannot be taken as a circumstance enuring in favour of the husband for transfer as prayed for. On the facts presented, I find the request for transfer is not entertainable and the petition is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-