IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD MARCH 2010 / 12TH PHALGUNA 1931 Tr.P(C).No. 92 of 2009() ---------------------------------- O.P. (HMA).124/2009 of FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM .................... PETITIONER/RESPONDENT ---------------------------------------- SINDHU. S., AGED 30 YEARS, D/O.SEETHANATHAN NAIR, SUN-WIN, OPP: L.S.M.CONVENT, OTTAPALAM P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.SANTHEEP ANKARATH RESPONDENT/PETITIONER ---------------------------------------- BIJOY R.NAIR, R.K.NIVAS, PALA P.O., PALA KARA, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. NOW WORKING AS DEPUTY MANAGER (CIVIL), H.R. DIVISION, N.H.P.C. LTD.,SECTOR 33, FARIDABAD, HARYANA-121 003. BY ADV. MR.A.K.HARIDAS. THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. P.BHAVADASAN, J. ------------------------------------- Tr.P.C. No.92 of 2009 ------------------------------------- Dated 3rd February 2010 Order This is a petition filed under S.24 CPC, seeking to have the OP pending before the Family Court, Kottayam transferred to Family Court, Palakkad at Ottappalam. 2. The petitioner is the respondent in OP No.124 of 2009 pending before the Family Court, Kottayam. The said OP has been filed by the respondent herein. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 01.02.2004. The couple has got a four year old child. After the marriage, they were residing at New Delhi, which is the place of employment of the respondent. 3. The petitioner submits, soon after the marriage, she was treated cruelly by her husband, demanding more dowry. Suffice to say that they began to reside separately. The petitioner says that she finds it difficult to travel to Kottayam for contesting the case filed TRPC 92/09 2 by her husband. She submits that she is a permanent resident of Ottappalam and presently she is doing M.Tech. course in Coimbatore. So, it is extremely difficult for her to come over to Kottayam along with her child, to contest the case. She also pointed out that since the respondent is employed outside Kerala, it does not make any difference to him whether the matter is taken up in the Family Court, Kottayam or Palakkad. She therefore, prays for transferring OP No.124 of 2009 pending before the Family Court, Kottayam to Family Court, Palakkad at Ottappalam. 4. The prayer of the petitioner is opposed by the respondent. He points out that the relatives of the petitioner have threatened him on an earlier occasion and therefore, he fears that he may not be able to go to Palakkad to attend the Court. So, he prays that the OP may be transferred to any other Family Court. In fact, the question of jurisdiction was also raised at the time of hearing this Petition. But, that point has to be urged before the concerned Family Court and this Court need not TRPC 92/09 3 consider the said question. 5. Since the respondent has expressed his apprehension that it may not be possible for him to attend the Court due to the threat meted out by the relatives of his wife, it is only appropriate that the case may not be transferred to Family Court, Palakkad. But, one has to notice the inconvenience pointed out by the petitioner also, more so because she has got a child of four years. 6. Considering the above aspects, it will be convenient to both parties if the OP is transferred to Family Court, Thrissur. In the result, this Petition is allowed and OP No.124 of 2009 pending before the Family Court, Kottayam shall stand transferred to Family Court, Thrissur for trial and disposal. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sta TRPC 92/09 4 TRPC 92/09 5