IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 24TH MAGHA 1929 Tr.P(C).No. 267 of 2007 -------------------------------- (O.P.571/2006 OF FAMILY COURT, THIRUVALLA) .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- FRANKLIN D.GOMAS, THUSHARA BHAVAN, VALLAKKADAVU, VALIYATHURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.MUHAMMED HANEEFF, SRI.R.KRISHNAKUMAR (CHERTHALA). RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. JEENA MARY THOMAS, VADAKKETHIL VEEDU, PATHANAMTHITTA P.O., KOZHENCHERRY TALUK. 2. ROY FRANKLIN GOMAS,S/O.FRANKLIN D.GOMAS, THUSHARA BHAVAN, VALLAKKADAVU, VALIYATHURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW. THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/02/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A. 3124/2007 IN TR.P.(C). NO. 267/2007 DISMISSED 13/02/2008. SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE. //TRUE COPY// prv. M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Tr.P.C. NO. 267 OF 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 13th day of February, 2008. J U D G M E N T This Transfer Petition is filed with a prayer to transfer O.P.571/06 pending before the Family Court, Thiruvalla to any other Family Court. The averment is that the Family Court Judge has taken a hostile attitude towards the petitioner and that he did not permit the petitioner to examine the witnesses effectively. I called for a report from the learned Judge. The learned Judge has very elaborately written about the cases and so far as M.C.261/06 is concerned the Court has granted an order of maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month and that the husband did not participate in the matter and therefore he was forced to pass an exparte order. I am informed that not even an Tr.P.C. NO. 267 OF 2007 -:2:- application is filed to set aside the exparte order. So far as O.P.571/06 is concerned when the case was posted on 5.12.07 neither the counsel nor the party was present but on 10.12.07 an application was filed with an averment that counter petitioner was present. The Court asked why such an averment which is not true is made and that has provoked the lawyer and most probably that has resulted in filing of a transfer application. Even then the Court entertained the application for reopening the evidence on payment of costs of Rs.1,000/- on 12.12.07. The factum of transfer petition was mentioned so the Court adjourned it to 17.12.07. The Court also had reported that both PW1 and PW2 were extensively cross-examined and also had appended the photocopy of the depositions. The Court has also forwarded a copy of the 'B' Diary for perusal of this Court. So from the materials available and report by the Family Court Judge it appears that as stated by him the counsel has been provoked by the question and that has resulted in the transfer petition. A Court cannot shut its eyes Tr.P.C. NO. 267 OF 2007 -:3:- when it find a mistake or a false averment in an affidavit and therefore one cannot blame the Court for asking such a question. The duty is only to explain and not to file an application for transfer. It is true that Section 24 gives power to the High Court to transfer a case, but what is to be looked into is that it shall not be used as a weapon to get any case transferred and the institutional respect and decorum has to be maintained. I am equally conscious of the fact that justice should not only be done but it must be seem to be done as well. It is a senior District Judge who is officiating as Family Court Judge and therefore one need not tell him about the same. Therefore I am not inclined to effect a transfer on the grounds mentioned. Therefore I disallow the application for transfer but this unpleasant situation may not remain in the mind of the Judge who is trying the case and he should dispose of the matter strictly in accordance with law and if any additional evidence is required and sufficient grounds are made out that may be permitted and the matter be heard and disposed of in Tr.P.C. NO. 267 OF 2007 -:4:- accordance with law. I also direct both the sides to co- operate with the Court and forget what had transpired earlier and to concentrate on the case on merits. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-