IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2011 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1933 Tr.P(C).No. 69 of 2011 ------------------------ OP.31/2011 of FAMILY COURT,VADAKARA .................... PETITIONER: ------------------ SIMI, AGED 29 YEARS, D/O.RAJAN, SHIJIL NIVAS, MADAPPALLY COLLEGE, VADAKARA, VADAKARA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.HABEEB RESPONDENT: ------------------------ LATHEESH, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.C.P.SIVADASAN, SREESAILAM, CINNAMPALLIPARAMBIL, P.O.KOYILANDY, KOYILANDY TALUK. R1 BY ADVS. SRI.P.R.SREEJITH SRI.M.PROMODH KUMAR THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: kkj K.T.SANKARAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Tr.P.(C)No. 69 of 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 9th day of June, 2011 ORDER The petitioner is the wife of the respondent. She filed O.P.No.730/2010 before the Family Court , Kozhikode for restitution of conjugal rights. Subsequently, the Family Court, Vadakara was established and the case was made over to the Family Court, Vadakara, where the case was numbered as O.P.No.31/2011. The prayer in the Transfer Petition is to transfer O.P.No.31/2011 pending before the Family Court, Vadakara to the Family Court, Kozhikode. 2. It is stated that the petitioner is residing at Vadakara and the respondent is residing at Koyilandy. Though the Family Court, Vadakara is the nearest court for the petitioner, she apprehends that she will not get full justice if the case is tried before the Family Court, Vadakara. It is stated in paragraph 6 of the Transfer Petition that the Judge of the Family Court, Vadakara insists on the parties agreeing for a divorce. The petitioner states that she is not willing for a divorce. It is also pointed out that the Original Petition for divorce filed by the respondent before the Family Court, Kozhikode was dismissed on the merits. It is Tr.P.(C)No. 69 of 2011 2 submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in spite of the inconvenience that may be caused to the petitioner (if the case is transferred from the Family Court, Vadakara to the Family Court, Kozhikode particularly in view of the illness of her son), she insists on transferring the case only because of the bad experience which she had from the Family Court, Vadakara. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the allegations made by the petitioner are not correct. It is submitted that the petitioner prefers the Family Court, Kozhikode because the Original Petition filed by the respondent for divorce was dismissed by the Family Court, Kozhikode. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that if the petitioner apprehends that she will not get a fair trial in the Family Court, Vadakara, the respondent has no objection in transferring the case to the Family Court, Thalassery. The learned counsel for the petitioner , after getting instructions from the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner has no objection in transferring the case to the Family Court, Thalassery. Accordingly, taking into account all the facts and circumstances of the case, O.P.No.31/2011 pending before the Tr.P.(C)No. 69 of 2011 3 Family Court, Vadakara is transferred to the Family Court, Thalassery. The Family Court, Vadakara shall transmit the records of the case to the Family Court, Thalassery. The parties shall appear before the Family Court, Thalassery on 7th July, 2011. It is made clear that I have not expressed any view on the allegation made by the petitioner that she is not likely to get a fair trial in the Family Court, Vadakara. K.T. SANKARAN JUDGE kkj