IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 8TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 17TH KARTHIKA 1932 Tr.P(C).No. 343 of 2010() ------------------------- OS.1165/2009 of PRLMUNSIFF COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONERS: ------------------------------- 1. PETER JOSEPH,AGED 58 YEARS, S/O.JOSEPH, NAMBIAPARAMBIL HOUSE,VANNAPURAM PO, KALIYAR, THODUPUZHA. 2. THANKAMMA,AGED 54 YEARS, W/O.PETER JOSEPH, NAMBIAPAPRAMBIL HOUSE, VANNAPURAM PO, KALIYAR, THODUPUZHA. 3. PRETTY PETER,AGED 29 YEARS, W/O.SHINO GEORGE, HOUSE NO.50/851, ELAMAKKARA ROAD, NEAR CHAMPUZHA PARK, EDAPPALLY, COCHIN-24. BY ADV. SRI.ZAKEER HUSSAIN SMT.K.A.SANJEETHA RESPONDENT: --------------- GEORGE THOMAS,AGED 58 YEARS, KACHOLAKALAYIL HOUSE,MANJOOR PO, KURUPUMTHARA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,PIN 686 603, REP.BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER GRACY GEORGE,AGED 54 YEARS,W/O.GEORGE THOMAS RESIDING IN THE ADDRESS ABOVE. THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- Tr.P(C).No.343 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 08th day of November, 2010 ORDER This petition is for transfer of O.S.No.1165 of 2009 from the court of learned Munsiff, Ernakulam to Family Court, Ernakulam. Respondent filed O.S.No.1165 of 2009 against petitioners for a decree for mandatory injunction alleging that his son married petitioner No.3 on 21-04-2007 and thereafter the son and petitioner No.3 stayed with him. Later, they took up residence in a rented house and after some time they left to the place of employment of the son (abroad). It is the case of respondent that at a later point of time petitioners trespassed into the old house in the suit property and started residence there. He prayed for a decree for mandatory injunction. 2. Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are parents of petitioner No.3. They contended that it was utilizing the amount that petitioners had entrusted with the respondent at the time of marriage of petitioner No.3 with the son of respondent that the suit property was purchased. They also disputed the jurisdiction of civil court since according to them, no decree of the nature prayed for could be passed by the civil court in circumstances arising out of marital Tr.P(C).No.343 of 2010 : 2 : relationship. It is contended by learned counsel that petitioner No.3 has initiated proceedings in the Family Court, Ernakulam against respondent and others for recovery of money (allegedly) entrusted to the respondent at the time of marriage. 3. It is contended by learned counsel that O.S.No.1165 of 2009 is coming up for trial in the court of learned Munsiff this day. It is also pointed out that issue regarding jurisdiction has been raised in the written statement filed by petitioners. In such a situation I do not consider it necessary at this stage to entertain this petition for transfer of the suit to Family Court, Ernakulam. Since objection regarding maintainability of the suit and jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain the suit are under consideration in O.S.No.1165 of 2009, it is not necessary for me to go into that question. It is open to the petitioners to challenge maintainability of the suit in the civil court in the way it is contended in the written statement. With the above observation this petition is closed. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-