IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 22ND NOVEMBER 2011 / 1ST AGRAHAYANA 1933 Tr.P(C).No. 404 of 2011() ----------------------------------- OP.837/2011 of FAMILY COURT, THALASSERY .................... PETITIONER (S): --------------------------- P.PRABHAKARAN, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O. GOVINDAN, KOTTATHUVALAPPIL HOUSE, KUMMANAM, KEEZHALLUR AMSOM, ELAMBARA DESOM, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.E.C.BINEESH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- N.C. BINDU, AGED 33 YEARS, KRISHNALAYAM, KARA P.O., KEEZHALLOOR AMSOM, KARA DESOM, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT PIN 670 101. THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss TPC. 404/20111 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF ANNUAL SUBSCRIPTION ISSUED BY THE BAR ASSOCIATION, THALASSERY DT. 7.4 .2007. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Tr.P.(C) No.404 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of November, 2011. ORDER This petition is filed by the petitioner-husband for transfer of O.P.No.837 of 2011 from the Family Court, Thalassery to the Family Court, Kannur. Petitioner filed O.P.No.770 of 2009 for restitution of conjugal rights and it is stated that petition was allowed on 15.12.2010. But the respondent-wife refused to comply. Petitioner filed O.P.No.837 of 2011 seeking divorce. On 15.11.2011 when petitioner came to attend the court, respondent is said to have threatened petitioner and stated that he will not get divorce from the Family Court, Thalassery. Thereafter the case was called in court. Grievance of petitioner is that without any request from either side, the Family Court directed petitioner to produce the child in court. That conduct of the court caused apprehension to the petitioner. Hence the request for transfer. Learned counsel requests that having regard to the circumstances stated above and considering the fact that respondent is a lawyer practicing in the Family Court, Thalassery, the case may be transferred to the Family Court, Kannur. 2. On hearing learned counsel and going through the petition I do not find any justifiable reason to order transfer of the case. Merely because respondent said that petitioner will not get divorce from the Family Court, Thalassery and without request from anybody the Family Court directed Tr.P(C)No.404/2011 2 petitioner to produce the child, that is no ground to transfer the case. If petitioner is aggrieved by the direction to produce the child it is open to him to challenge that order as provided under law. I am not inclined to think that transfer of the case is required. Petition is dismissed. I.A.No.2691 of 2011 will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks