IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 20TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 29TH BHADRA 1932 Tr.P(C).No. 268 of 2009() ------------------------- OP.494/2008 of FAMILY COURT, THIRUVALLA .................... PETITIONER/3RD RESPONDENT: ------------------------------ AHAMMED KUNJU, AJI MANZIL, NOORANAD P.O., MAVELIKARA, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL) SMT.SURYA SASI RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER & 1 AND 2 RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. NASEEHA, NASEEHA MANZIL, MULANTHARA P.O., KUMANOOR, KONNI, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2. AJEESH ASRAF, AJI MANZIL, NOORANAD P.O., MAVELIKARA, ALAPPUZHA. 3. VAHEEDA, AJI MANZIL, NOORANAD P.O., MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA. THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/09/2010, ALONG WITH Tr.P(C) No.270/2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Tr.P.(C) Nos.268 & 270 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of September, 2010. ORDER These petitions are filed by the respective respondents in O.P.No.494 of 2008 and M.C.No.156 of 2008 of Family Court, Thiruvalla. O.P.No.494 of 2008 is a petition filed by respondent No.1/wife against her husband, his mother and maternal grandfather for realization of money and other reliefs. The wife also filed M.C.No.156 of 2008 in the same court against the husband claiming maintenance. Petitioners developed an apprehension from some alleged observations made by the Presiding Officer of the Family Court, Thiruvalla that they may not get a fair trial and a just decision. Hence these petitions for transfer. 2. Respondents though served remained absent. Learned counsel for petitioners contend that in the light of affidavit sworn to by counsel concerned, there is genuine apprehension for petitioners as to a fair trial in the court concerned and hence these are fit cases for transfer to some other Family Court. 3. I have gone through the affidavit of the counsel concerned. There, it is stated that some observations were made by the Presiding Officer of the court concerned when the cases were taken up which allegedly were in favour of respondent No.1/wife. But, the mere fact that some observations were made at some point of time even if it is true (no doubt, it is appropriate to avoid such observations), cannot create any genuine apprehension as pleaded by petitioners as to the result of cases. Though not exactly similar to the facts of the Tr.P.(C) Nos.268 & 270 of 2009 2 cases on hand, this Court had occasion to consider a request for transfer in Balachandran v. Meena (1999 (1) KLT 769). There the apprehension raised by petitioner was that the Presiding Officer of the Family Court concerned was somewhat hostile to him. This Court observed that since Presiding Officer of the Family Court has a conciliatory role as well, such request for transfer cannot be entertained. It was also observed that request for transfer of the proceeding from one Family Court to another on such allegations if encouraged would be counter productive and would not achieve the object sought to be achieved by the Family Court Act itself. May be, to persuade the husband to come to terms some observations were made. But that need not be taken as indicating the ultimate result of the proceeding. After all it is open to the petitioners to adduce evidence in support of their contentions. There is no reason to think that if such evidence is adduced and if acceptable the Presiding Officer will ignore the same. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case I am not persuaded to think that request for transfer is to be allowed. Resultantly these petitions are dismissed. I.A.Nos.2777 of 2009 & 219 of 2010 in Tr.P.(C) No.268 of 2009 and I.A.Nos.2786 of 2009 and 220 of 2010 in Tr.P.(C) No.270 of 2009 will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks