IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 30TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Tr.P(C).No. 280 of 2009 ------------------------- OP.6/2009 of FAMILY COURT, KOTTARAKKARA .................... PETITIONER: ---------------- AMPILI.A.V,AMPILI BHAVANAM,MANNADI.P.O, ADOOR,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.G.UNNIKRISHNON MR.K.SANEESH KUMAR RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. MAHESH,MANOJ BHAVAN,INJAKKADU MURI, KALAYAPURAM VILLAGE,KOTTARAKKARA. 2. LEELA BHAI, DO. DO. ADV. MR.B.MOHANLAL FOR R1&R2 THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Tr.P(C).No. 280 of 2009 ORDER ON I.A.NO.2881/2009 IN TR.P.C.NO.2881/2009 DISMISSED. 30.11.2009 SD/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. // TRUE COPY // P.A TO JUDGE. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- Tr.P.C.No.280 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of November, 2009 O R D E R Petition is for transfer filed under Section 24 of the CPC. Petitioner is the wife and respondent, the husband. Petitioner has filed two petitions, one at the Family Court, Thiruvalla for dissolution of marriage and another at Family Court, Kottarakkara for return of gold ornaments and valuables allegedly retained by the husband and his mother. She seeks transfer of the petition pending before the Family Court, Kottarakkara to the Family Court, Thiruvalla. The cause canvassed for transfer is that she apprehends threat by the henchmen of the respondent/husband at Kottarakkara and there was one such instance a few days back at KSRTC bus station. 2. Notice being given, respondent has entered appearance. I heard the counsel on both sides. 3. Strongly refuting the allegations and imputations leveled against him, he contends that both the petitions have been filed by the wife and the Family Court, Kottarakkara is the Tr.P.C.No.280 of 2009 2 nearer place for both parties and trial in that court is more convenient than a trial at the Family Court, Thiruvalla. The second respondent, mother of the husband, is pretty aged, is also canvassed as a circumstance disentitling the wife from seeking the transfer. 4. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented, I find the request for transfer made by the wife deserves consideration. Merely because she has filed two petitions at different family courts, it cannot be stated that she is not competent or entitled to move for transfer. At present she is permanently residing at Thiruvalla in which the latter petition was filed, is also canvassed that it will be convenient for her to have the other proceedings also transferred to the Family Court, Thiruvalla. I do not find any reason to doubt the cause canvassed by the wife that she apprehends some threat at Kottarakka, even if it was not at the instance of her husband at Kottarakkara, and so much so, she is not able to go over to that place to prosecute the petition filed before the Family Court at that place. I direct for transfer of Tr.P.C.No.280 of 2009 3 O.P.No.6 of 2009 pending on the file of the Family Court, Kottarakkara to the Family Court, Thiruvalla. The Judge, Family Court, Kottarakkara shall transmit the records of the case to the Family Court, Thiruvalla without delay. Transferee court on receipt of the records shall issue notice to the parties for their appearance. Transfer petition is disposed of as above. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-