IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN MONDAY, THE 1ST MARCH 2010 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1931 Tr.P(C).No. 33 of 2010() ------------------------------- OPGW.1086/2009 of FAMILY COURT, KOTTARAKKARA CRMP.2005/2009 of J.M.F.C.-II, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER (S) --------------------- SAJITHA,D/O.AJEED,VALIYAVEETTIL HOUSE, CHERANELLOOR. BY ADVS. SMT.P.M.SWAYAM PRABHA SMT.R.ASALATHA VARMA RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ SAINULABDEEN,S/O.NURUDHEEN, MUJEED MANZIL,VENGARA(PO),SASTHAMCOTTA. THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss P. BHAVADASAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Tr.P.(C). No. 33 of 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 1st day of March, 2010. ORDER In this petition filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure the petitioner seeks to have transfer of O.P.(G&W) 1086 of 2009 pending before the Family court, Kottarakkara to Family Court, Ernakulam. 2. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 29.12.2005. They took up residence in the matrimonial house. It is alleged that the respondent soon began to harass her and treat her cruelly demanding more dowry. She had to take refuge in her parental house. A girl child was born to the couple in January, 2007. Since the respondent was not prepared to look after the petitioner and the child, she approached the Family Court, Ernakulam by filing O.P.989 of 2007 for divorce. The matter was compromised and the issues were settled. The couple began to reside together again. Later it seems that the Tr.P.(C).33/2010. 2 respondent again resorted to his old ways and began to neglect the petitioner and the child. That forced the petitioner to take recourse to the provisions under the Protection of Women under the Domestic Violence Act and that was allowed in favour of the petitioner. In retaliation, it is stated that, the respondent filed O.P.(G&W) 1086 of 2009 before the Family Court, Kottarakkara. 3. Petitioner is a resident of Ernakulam and she has a female child. It is extremely difficult for her to go to Kottarakkara to attend the frequent postings of the case. On the other hand, no harm or inconvenience is caused to the respondent in having the matter tried by the Family Court, Ernakulam. 4. Though notice was served on the respondent, he had not entered appearance. 5. On going through the petition, it is felt that the request made by the petitioner is genuine. It is averred in the petition that she is a permanent resident of Ernakulam and on an earlier occasion the petitioner has moved the Tr.P.(C).33/2010. 3 Family Court, Ernakulam and that was compromised. Petitioner's allegation that the present petition filed by the respondent is a counter blast to her petition before the learned Magistrate cannot be brushed aside. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is felt that the request made is just and reasonable. In the result, this petition is allowed and O.P. (G&W) 1086 of 2009 pending before the Family Court, Kottarakkara stands transferred to the Family Court, Ernakulam for trial and disposal. P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sb.