IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 16TH JANUARY 2009 / 26TH POUSHA 1930 Tr.P(C).No.225 of 2008 ---------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN OP.285/08, O.P299/08 & OP.540/2008 of FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM AT ETTUMANOOR .................... PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER --------------------------------------------------- 1. RUBLE KURIAKOSE, AGED 33, S/O.KURIAKOSE, KUNNATH HOUSE, MALAKUNNAM P.O., ITHITHANAM KARA, KURICHI VILLAGE, CHANGANACHERY TALUK, KOTTAYAM DIST. 2. KURIAKOSE, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.AUGUSTY DEVASIA, KUNNATH HOUSE, MALAKUNNAM P.O., ITHITHANAM KARA, KURICHI VILLAGE, CHANGANACHERY TALUK, KOTTAYAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.MANJU ANTONEY SRI.BIJU GOPAL RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER/RESPONDENTS ---------------------------------------------------- 1. JYOTHI THOMAS, AGED 31 YEARS, D/O.LATE THOMAS, PULLUKATTU HOUSE, (VANIAPPURACKAL HOUSE), KURISUMMOODU P.O., CHETHIPUZHA VILLAGE, CHANGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM DIST. 2. MARIAM THOMAS, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, W/O.LATE THOMAS, PULLUKATTU HOUSE, (VANIAPPURACKAL HOUSE), KURISUMMOODU P.O. CHETHIPUZHA VILLAGE, CHANGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM DIST. 3. JOMY THOMAS, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, S/O.LATE THOMAS, PULLUKATTU HOUSE, (VANIAPPURACKAL HOUSE), KURISUMMOODU P.O. CHETHIPUZHA VILLAGE, CHANGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM DIST. Tr.P(C).No.225 of 2008 2 4. JOJI THOMAS, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, S/O.LATE THOMAS, PULLUKATTU HOUSE, (VANIAPPURACKAL HOUSE), KURISUMMOODU P.O., CHETHIPUZHA VILLAGE, CHANGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM DIST. 5. JOLLY, AGED 31 YEARS, W/O.JOJI THOMAS, PULLUKATTU HOUSE, VANIAPPURACKAL HOUSE, KURISUMMOODU P.O., CHETHIPUZHA VILLAGE, CHANGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM DIST. ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM GEORGE JACOB FOR R1 THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.P.BALACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------------------ Tr. P. C No.225 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 16th day of January, 2009 ORDER There is appearance only for R1. Respondent 2, 4 and 5 are served and there is no appearance for them. Notice to R3 is returned again with the report “not known”. Hence, substitute service is asked for by the counsel for the petitioner vide I.A.104/09. Counsel for the first petitioner submits that the third respondent is the brother of the first respondent and that in this Transfer Petition it is not necessary that he also should be served when all others are served. Hence, notice to R3 is dispensed with. 2. Heard arguments of counsel on both sides. The prayer of the petitioners is for transfer of O.P.540/08, O.P.285/08, O.P.299/08 and M.C.128/08 pending on the file of the Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor to the Tr. P. C No.225 of 2008 -2- Family Court, Pathanamthitta at Thiruvalla. 3. The first respondent is the wife of the first petitioner. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the transfer sought for to the Family Court, Thiruvalla will be more convenient for the petitioners as well as to the respondents. Counsel for the first respondent/wife submits that such a transfer is not at all convenient to the first respondent/wife. The counsel for the petitioners was asked as to whether the first petitioner is paying maintenance to the first respondent. He had practically no reply to submit to the said query. The attempt of the first petitioner/husband is only to see that the first respondent/wife is harassed by getting a transfer of the case from Ettumanoor to Thiruvalla without even paying maintenance for her and there is no offer even made on behalf of the petitioners by their counsel Tr. P. C No.225 of 2008 -3- that the first petitioner will pay the entire amounts due to the first respondent by way of maintenance and will bear the expenses of the first respondent's coming over to the Family Court, Thiruvalla for the conduct of the cases. 4. In the circumstances, I see no merit in the application for transfer. This Transfer Petition is dismissed. K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JUDGE kns/-