IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 6TH JANUARY 2011 / 16TH POUSHA 1932 Tr.P(C).No. 400 of 2010() ------------------------------- OP.703/2010 of FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM .................... PETITIONER/IST RESPONDENT ------------------------------------- LIYAKKATH, S/O.MOHAMMEDUNNI, KOLAPPARAMBIL HOUSE, WEST OF PUTHIYARA PALLI, THIRUVATHRA (P.O.), THRISSUR DISTRICT. (CHAVAKKAD POLICE STATION LIMIT) BY ADV. SRI.T.K.AJITH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------------------ UMMU SALMA, D/O.ADAM MUSLIAR, KADANNALAYIL HOUSE, AYIROOR AMSOM DESOM, PALAPPETTY (PO), PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-679 580. (PERUMPADAPU POLICE STATION LIMIT) THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: svs K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------ Tr.P.(C).No.400 OF 2010 ------------------------------ Dated this the 6 th day of January, 2011 ORDER The petitioner, who is the husband of the respondent, seeks transfer of OP No.703 of 2010 (filed by the wife) pending before the Family Court, Malappuram to the Family Court, Thrissur. 2. The petitioner is residing at Thiruvathra in Chavavakkad Taluk, Thrissur District. The respondent belongs to Palappetty in Ponnani Taluk, Malappuram District. The Family Court having jurisdiction is indisputably the Family Court, Malappuram. It is stated that the matrimonial home is within the jurisdiction of the Family Court, Thrissur. That means, probably, the Thrissur Family Court and the Malappuram Family Court have jurisdiction. O.P.No.703 of 2010 was filed by the wife before the Family Court, Malappuram, a court having jurisdiction. Tr.P.(C).No.400 OF 2010 2 3. The ground for transfer is that the petitioner has to travel about 100 K.M. to appear before the Family Court at Malappuram and the respondent has to travel about 80 K.M. to reach Malappuram. It is stated that the Family Court, Thrissur is nearer to the place of both the parties. 4. The ground stated by the petitioner is not an adequate ground for transferring the case. The respondent did not put forward any case that she has inconvenience to appear before the Family Court, Malappuram. The additional distance which the petitioner has to travel is about 20 K.M. when compared to the distance to be travelled by the wife to appear before the Family Court, Malappuram. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that under Section 9 of the Family Courts Act, a duty is cast on every Family Court to assist Tr.P.(C).No.400 OF 2010 3 and persuade the parties to arrive at a settlement. In the present case, the Family Court did not make any such an attempt, contents the counsel. That is not a ground for transfer of the case. The petitioner can very well point out the same before the Family Court. If the procedure prescribed by the Family Court is not followed, the petitioner can point out the same before the Appellate Court, as well. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent has claimed an amount of Rs.7,93,100/- as the value of the gold ornaments allegedly appropriated by the petitioner. In ground (F), it is stated by the petitioner as follows: “F. Now it is quite common in Family Court, Malappuram ordering the return of the Gold ornaments shown in the marriage photograph produced before it without any evidence to show that those were original gold ornaments. Now the respondent herein has claimed an amount of Rs.7,93,100/- as the value of Gold ornaments and money allegedly she had and misappropriated by the petitioner. The petitioner is sure that if Tr.P.(C).No.400 OF 2010 4 the trial of the above case is held at Family Court, Malappuram, it will award the entire amount claimed in the petition without any valid evidence.” 7. I do not think that this is a ground for transfer of the case from Family Court, Malappuram. If this ground is a ground for transfer, all similar cases pending before the Family Court, Malappuram should be transferred to some other courts. If the petitioner is aggrieved by any order passed by the Family Court, he would be free to raise all the contentions in the appeal. No grounds are made out to transfer the case as prayed for. The Transfer Petition is accordingly dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, cms JUDGE.