IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 25TH JANUARY 2008 / 5TH MAGHA 1929 Tr.P(C).No. 270 of 2007 ------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN OP 29/07 & MC 8/07 IN OP.965/2006 OF FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM ...................................... PETITIONER: ----------------- JACOB SISIN ABRAHAM, S/O. JACOB ABRAHAM, OTTATHIKKEL VEETTIL, NATTAKOM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.VINOY VARGHESE KALLUMOOTTILL RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. JASINA SUSAN JOHN, CHURAPPADIL VEETTIL, PUTHENCHANTHA P.O., VAKATHANAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. CHARLY GEORGE, VATTAPPAKKAL, KANNAN CHIRA, VAKATHANAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.P.VARKEY SRI.MARTIN G.THOTTAN THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Tr.P.C. NO. 270 OF 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 25th day of January, 2008. J U D G M E N T This Transfer Petition is filed with a prayer to transfer O.P.965/06, O.P.29/07 and M.C.8/07 from the Family Court, Ettumanoor to the Family Court, Ernakulam or any other Family Court in the State. Husband is the transfer petitioner. The husband has filed an application against the wife for divorce on the ground of adultery, desertion, cruelty etc. as O.P.965/06. The wife has filed M.C.8/07 for maintenance and O.P.29/07 is filed for restitution of conjugal rights. All these matters are pending before the said Court. The averment in the petition is that when the case was posted on a date, i.e. on 22.10.07, one person entered into the Court room abused the counsel, Advocate Sri. K.T. Thomas and further when the petitioner's counsel came out from the Court, a group of people tried to attack the said Tr.P.C. NO. 270 OF 2007 -:2:- Advocate Sri. K.T. Thomas. It is submitted that there is a threat for the life of the advocate as well as the party and therefore the case should be transferred out of that Court. It is also submitted that a complaint has been sent to the High Court by the advocate. It is strongly opposed by the other side. 2. According to the respondent/wife it was the advocate who created the problem by starting a fight against the person and the relationship between the advocate and the said person is that of brother-in-law. Or in other words, the husband's uncles is the advocate for him and the witness who appeared in the case is none other than the father of the husband. So even if there was any altercation it was between the brothers-in-law. The counsel for the respondent has also produced an affidavit filed by the said person namely Jacob Abraham wherein he has sworn to the effect that it was the advocate who had started the problem. Equally there is an affidavit filed by the advocate on 26.11.07 that the said Jacob Abraham had abused him. Tr.P.C. NO. 270 OF 2007 -:3:- 3. At the out set the very wording that one person entered the Court room and abused him would go to show that the advocate is not prepared to speak the whole truth. It was not a stranger but it was his brother-in-law, i.e. none other than his sister's husband. So, the wording one person itself indicates the spirit in which the matter is dealt with. It is true that a complaint is sent to the Registrar of High Court also for action. It has to be remembered that the incident had taken place on 22.10.07 and petitions are filed only in November, 2007 whereas the affidavit by the said Jacob Abraham is filed on 22.10.07 itself. Virtually this is not a professional confrontation but a family confrontation and of course which cannot take place within the four corners of the courts compound. Even if this case is transferred out to another place if the attitude of the parties does not change similar scene can be created everywhere. Therefore I may state that less said about the better. 4. Now, the approach appears to be that the father of the transfer petitioner has been cited as a witness by the wife. The case appears to be based on a fact that the wife Tr.P.C. NO. 270 OF 2007 -:4:- had earlier entered into a registered marriage with somebody and the contention of the husband is that it was suppressing the same, the marriage took place. But the wife denied the same and submitted that it is done only after informing all and that is why she wants to cite her father-in-law as a witness. Naturally there will be unhappiness and it has to be faced at some platform or other i.e. either in the Family Court, Kottayam or in some other Family Court. 5. There are some other allegations leveled against which may amount to some disbelief on the Presiding Officer as well. But they are only vague statements. So I feel that no transfer need to be effected of those allegations. But sufficient safeguard can be taken so that unnecessary confrontation within the Court premises an be averted. When the witness namely the father of the petitioner is to be examined he may be examined on a specific date and when he comes to the Court he may be directed to sit in the room of the Sheristhadhar and when his turn comes for examination he may be called and examined and being a divorce case as it can be tried as proceedings in camera rest Tr.P.C. NO. 270 OF 2007 -:5:- of the persons who are not connected with the litigation may be asked to be outside the Court hall till the examination is over and the Court shall also specifically take care to see that unnecessary confrontation is not created in the Court hall and the advocate (the brother-in-law) should also take special care to see that family matters are not dragged into the conduct of cases. If, at any stage, the Court feels that it is going out of control, certainly, even without my saying, it has got all the power to ask for police help for the smooth conduct of the case. I hold and feel at least after this unfortunate incident the parties may reconcile and face the litigation with cool heads so that unnecessary embarrassment to one and all can be averted. I also direct the Court below to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible at any rate before 31.3.2008. With these observations the Tr.P.C. is disposed of negativing the prayer for transfer. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-