IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2008 / 8TH MAGHA 1929 Tr.P(C).No. 266 of 2007() ------------------------- OP.561/2007 of FAMILY COURT, ALAPPUZHA .................... PETITIONER -------------- INDIRA, D/O.VASUDEVA PANICKER, KUNNATTU KULATHU HOUSE, KUMARAKOM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL CYRIAC SMT.N.SINDHU RESPONDENT: ------------- K.R.DILEEP KUMAR, S/O.LATE T.V.RAGHAVAN, KALIYANATTU VELLIYIL HOUSE, MARARYKULAM NORTH VILLAGE, CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON IA 3114/07 IN Tr.P.C 266/07 DISMISSED 28.1.08 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE. M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- Tr.P.C. NO. 266 OF 2007 --------------------- Dated this the 28th day of January, 2008 ORDER This transfer petition is filed with a prayer to transfer OP 561/07 on the file of the Family Court,Alappuzha to the Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor. Unfortunately, the couple had fallen out and the present petition is one for dissolution of the marriage. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that she has to travel to a distant place like Alappuzha, which is about 100 Kms. away from her residence. It is a fact that she is conducting some business in Alappuzha. The factum that the Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor is situated 100 Kms. away from Alappuzha is absolutely incorrect. The Apex court in the decision reported in Anindita Das v. Srijit Das [2006 (9) SCC 197] has held that it is not desirable to allow transfer applications indiscriminately and the court has to apply its mind to the facts and circumstances of each case for a transfer. The Apex court observed that the leniency shown by the court is misused by the ladies. This is a case where the wife is carrying out the business at Alappuzha and that her case is pending at Family Court, Tr.P.C. No.266/07 2 Alappuzha. When she can come to do the business every day at Alappuzha, I do not know why she could not conduct the case at Alappuzha. Therefore, I do not find any ground to transfer the case. But I make it clear that since the case involves the question of adultery, it is mandatory and desirable that it shall be tried as a proceeding in camera. When the transfer petitioner finds it difficult to attend the court on days, where her presence is not really necessary, and moves an application for exemption, that may be considered and liberally allowed by the court below. The transfer petition is disposed of accordingly. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps Tr.P.C. No.266/07 3