IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 20TH JANUARY 2009 / 30TH POUSHA 1930 Tr.P(C).No. 308 of 2008 -------------------------------------- OP.244/2008 of FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM .................... PETITIONERS/RESPONDENT: A.K.MUNEER, S/O.KHALID, THENAMMACKAL HOUSE, KANJIRAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: SUHANA, D/O.DR.B.A.SHAMSUDHEEN, SALAMATH HOUSE, NEAR ARAMANAPPADY, CHANGANACHERRY. ADV. SRI.S.M.ALTHAF THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.P. Balachandran, J. -------------------------- Tr.P.(C)No.308 of 2008 -------------------------- ORDER Counsel for the respondent/wife submits that objection has been filed by the petitioner/husband in O.P.No.244/08 in compliance with the directions of this Court in the order dated 19.12.2008. 2. The prayer of the petitioner/husband, who is the respondent in O.P.No.244/08 filed by the respondent/wife before the Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor, is to transfer the said original petition to the Family Court, Alappuzha or to the Family Court, Ernakulam on the ground that the Judge in the Family Court, Ettumanoor is acting in a one sided manner and is prejudiced against him as if he is unnecessarily denying divorce; that he was not permitted to file his written objection and that no proper counselling was also done. 3. It is seen that O.P.No.244/08 was filed by the respondent/wife on 3.3.2008 and even as on 19.11.2008, when this transfer petition was filed, TPC 308/08 2 the petitioner/husband had not filed objection. However, pursuant to the direction of this Court in the order dated 19.12.2008, he filed objection on 2.1.2009, taking almost one year. 4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that objection was not filed as counselling was not over. In fact, counselling should have been done after filing of the objection and not before filing of the objection, though nothing prevents an effort being made at conciliation even before filing of the objection. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Judge of the Family Court appears to have been prejudiced against him as if he is unnecessarily denying divorce. It is the duty of the Family Court, dealing with family matters, to make all attempts at conciliation to unite the parties to the marriage and if the Judge is convinced that the marital tie has broken down beyond repair, to advise the parties for a divorce so as to avoid further harassment to both sides. TPC 308/08 3 Any effort made by a Family Court Judge in that direction cannot be interpreted as a partisan attitude and be made use of to apply for transfer of the original petition to some other Family Court. I do not see any merit in the transfer petition, especially when the counsel for the respondent/wife submits that a counsel at Kottayam had been engaged by the wife and if at all a transfer is ordered either to Alappuzha or to Ernakulam another Lawyer may have to be engaged undergoing all the ordeal thereof, for which the respondent is not capable. In the circumstances, refusing to allow the transfer prayed for by the petitioner/husband, I dismiss this transfer petition. 20th January, 2009 (K.P.Balachandran, Judge) tkv