IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 18TH DECEMBER 2008 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Tr.P(C).No.323 of 2008 --------------------------- OP.437/2006 of FAMILY COURT, NEDUMANGAD .................... PETITIONER/RESPONDENT --------------------------------- A.R. BEENA, D/O. ROSAMMA, ANUGRAHA, CONVENT LANE, NALANCHIRA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.SUDHEER RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: -------------------------------- SABU , S/O. KRISHNAN, KIZHAKKAVILA VEEDU, OZHUKUPARA, VATTAPPARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.P.BALACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------------------ Tr. P. C No.323 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 18th day of December, 2008 ORDER Heard the counsel for the petitioner. 2. The grievance of the petitioner which prompted her to move for a transfer is that the Judge, Family Court, Nedumangad is compelling her to agree for a divorce when the petitioner is not willing for a divorce and further that the Family Court Judge is compelling the petitioner to receive Rs.2.5 lakhs to agree for divorce and when she expressed her unwillingness to agree for a divorce, the Family Court Judge in open court expressed her intention to grant divorce if the petitioner is not ready for a settlement and that she therefore, feels that justice will not be rendered to her from the Family Court, Nedumangad. Tr. P. C No.323 of 2008 -2- 3. In matters relating to family disputes the Judge of the Family Court has a statutory duty to make all attempts at mediation. Mediation can be by settlement of the dispute or in cases where by reason of the family relationship having broken down completely, mediation would be to effect a divorce so that both parties can have relief from the marital tie and enter into other marital relationship if they so desire. While making attempts at effecting mediation it may become necessary for the court to make various suggestions. Making of such suggestions from the court are not with a view to implement the said suggestion even if it is not agreeable to the parties. Without making suggestions to both parties, certainly it is not possible for a Family Court, Judge to decide as to whether the case would be one which requires to be settled and the parties are to be got reunited Tr. P. C No.323 of 2008 -3- or as to whether it is a fit case where parties are to be advised to effect a divorce. When such suggestions are made, though it may be that the parties may develop some misunderstanding and on the spur of the moment they may act believing for the present that he or she will not get justice from the concerned court, advocates who are having practice in the Family Court will have to enlighten the parties as to what is the role of a Judge in the Family Court and remove the misunderstanding the parties have instead of rushing to this Court seeking for a transfer. 4. It is worthy to remember that no judicial officer will be interested in the parties to a marriage agreeing to dissolve the marriage in the normal course unless the marriage itself on the materials made available is shown to have collapsed and is rendered irreparable. I am sure that the Tr. P. C No.323 of 2008 -4- Family Court Judge will bear that in mind and act only according to law and the concerned counsel will enlighten the petitioner as regards the role of a Judge in the Family Court and remove her misunderstanding. I am not of the view that in the circumstances O.P.437/06 pending before the Family Court, Nedumangad requires to be transferred to the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram allowing this Transfer Petition. 5. In the result, I dismiss this Transfer Petition. K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JUDGE kns/-