IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 28TH JUNE 2011 / 7TH ASHADHA 1933 Tr.P(C).No. 98 of 2011() ------------------------ OP.NO.1129/2009, OP NO.44/2011 AND M.C.NO.6/2009 FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM .................... PETITIONER -------------------- GOPAKUMAR, AGED 29, S/O. KUMARAN PILLAI, CHIRAKKONATHU PUTHEN VEEDU, KUTTICHAL.P.O AND NOW RESIDING AT SREE NILAYAM, KARIPPOOR, NEDUMANGAD. BY ADV. SRI.S.V.PREMAKUMARAN NAIR SRI.R.T.PRADEEP RESPONDENT(S): COUNTER PETITIONER --------------------------------- MINI.A.M, AGED 37, D/O. LAKSHMI, ARYANOLIL HOUSE, PIZHAKKU.P.O, MANATHOOR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/06/2011, THE COURT ON 28/06/2011 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Tr.P(C).No. 98 of 2011() PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANN.1. COPY OF OP NO.1135/09 DTD.30.9.2009 F.C., NEDUMANGAD ANN.II. COPY OF OP 1129/09 OF FC, KOTTAYAM ANN.III: COPY OF MC 6/2009 ANN.IV: COPY OF ORDER DTD.15.9.2010 IN TR.P.347/09 ANN.V: COPY OF ORAL EVIDENCE OF RESPONDENT DTD.16.3.2011. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------ Tr.P(C)No.98 OF 2011 ------------------------------ Dated this the 28th day of June, 2011 ORDER The prayer in this Transfer Petition is to transfer OP No.1129 of 2009, OP No.44 of 2011 and M.C.No.6 of 2009 pending before the Family Court, Kottayam to the Family Court, Kollam. 2. The reasons stated for transfer are the following: “The Judge of Family Court is taking a partisan and prejudicial stand against the petitioner. The Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent is very close to the judge and the proximity is reflected in the discharge of judicial duty prejudicial to the petitioner.” 3. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the Judge of the Family Court was transferred to another station and therefore, the grounds raised for transfer no longer subsist. 4. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent, I do not think it is necessary to consider the request for transfer. Tr.P(C)No.98 OF 2011 2 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the deposition of PW1 (the petitioner) and submitted that the counsel for the petitioner was not allowed to put the questions to the petitioner in chief examination. On a perusal of the deposition of PW1, it is seen that what is recorded in the chief examination is that the statements made by the petitioner in the petition are true. There is substance in the contention put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The Family Court shall permit the petitioner to lead evidence in chief examination and the respondent will be permitted to cross examine him on such evidence adduced by the petitioner. This direction is being issued, on noticing manifest injustice done to the petitioner and I exercise my jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in this regard. The Transfer Petition is, accordingly, closed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE. cms