IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH JANUARY 2010 / 23TH POUSHA 1931 Tr.P(C).No. 250 of 2009 ------------------------- OP.797/2009 of FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM .................... PETITIONER: -------------- JOJAN, S/O.ABRAHAM, VADANA HOUSE, CHANNAKKADA P.O., KALLAR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. PIN-671 532. BY ADV. MR.JOSE J.MATHAIKAL RESPONDENT: --------------- SHEEBA, W/O.JOJAN, OLLETHAZHATHU HOUSE, UZHAVOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM. ADV. MR.SUNIL CYRIAC FOR R1 THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Tr.P(C).No. 250 of 2009 ORDER ON I,A.NO.2635/2009 IN TR.P.C.NO.250/2009 DISMISSED. 13.1.2010 SD/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. // TRUE COPY // P.A TO JUDGE. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- Tr.P.C.No.250 of 2009 - O --------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of January, 2010 O R D E R Petition is for transfer filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Petitioner is the husband and respondent, the wife. Husband seeks transfer of a petition filed by the wife O.P.No.797 of 2009 on the file of the Family Court, Ettumanoor to the Family Court, Kasargode. Wife in the above petition has claimed return of gold ornaments and valuables and property. 2. Notice given, wife has entered appearance through counsel. I heard the counsel on both sides. 3. Spouses have one child born out of their wedlock and it is stated to be aged four years. Ever since the separation of the spouses in late 2009, it is submitted, the child is under the care and custody of the father. That circumstance is also canvassed by the petitioner/husband for transfer of the petition filed by the wife to the Family Court of his native place. Resisting the transfer requested for, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that wife is unable to maintain herself and she has Tr.P.C.No.250 of 2009 2 already moved a petition seeking for maintenance as well and that too is pending before the Family Court, Ettumanoor. Her lack of means to have sustenance in life, it is submitted, has constrained and prevented her from proceeding for getting custody of the child as she could not feed the child and take care of that infant satisfying its needs. She is living in penury and if a transfer as requested for is ordered then she will not be in a position to prosecute her claims at a distant place, is the further submission of the counsel for the respondent. She has abandoned the child and it is because of her fault the matrimonial relationship between the parties got ruptured, is the submission of the counsel for the petitioner/husband pointing out that the wife had even manhandled him on a previous occasion with a crime registered over such incident. Whatever that be, such disputed facts canvassed by the rival side have to be examined by the Family Court and not by this Court while considering the merit of the transfer requested for. I find no reason to disbelieve the assertion made by the learned counsel for the wife that she has no wherewithal and means to meet her requirements in life Tr.P.C.No.250 of 2009 3 and if a transfer is made to a distant place she will not be able to prosecute her claims. Husband has no case that he is providing maintenance to the wife, and no material is also produced to show that she has means for the sustenance in life. In such circumstances, I find the case canvassed by the wife opposing the transfer has to be accepted. Transfer petition lacks merit, and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-