IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 5TH JUNE 2008 / 15TH JYAISHTA 1930 Tr.P(C).No. 118 of 2008() ------------------------- OS.177/2005 of FAMILY COURT, NEDUMANGAD .................... PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF: ------------------------------------- SHIBINA (MINOR), REPRESENTED BY MOHAMMED HANEEFA, GUARDIAN AND NEXT FRIEND, MUNDAIKONAM, MANGATTU VEEDU, NAGAROOR VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.P.A.AHAMMED SRI.THOUFEEK AHAMED RESPONDENT: DEFENDANT: ------------------------------------------- EASA KUNJU, S/O. MALIK MOHAMMED, POTTIVILAKATHU VEEDU, MANJAPPRA DESOM. BY THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.Sasidharan Nambiar,J. ======================= Tr.P(C) No.118 of 2008 ======================= Dated this the 5th day of June, 2008 O R D E R Petitioner is the minor daughter of the respondent. She filed O.S.264/2000, before Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram with her grandfather as the guardian claiming maintenance. Suit was decreed ex parte on 31.5.2002. Subsequently respondent filed a petition to set aside the ex parte decree. That application was filed by the respondent before Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. That was subsequently transferred to Family Court, Nedumangad on the formation of that court. Petition was allowed and the ex parte decree was set aside. Now the suit is pending before Family Court, Nedumangad. This petition is filed to transfer the case to Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram contending that the suit is not being disposed by the Family Court, Nedumangad and even before the ex parte decree was set aside a Tr.P(C)118/2008 2 settlement was sought to be effected at the chambers of the Family Court and when it was objected to at the instance of the petitioner on the ground that before setting aside the ex parte decree the matter cannot be settled, the ex parte decree was set aside and respondent has not filed a written statement and still the Presiding Officer is not disposing the matter. It was also contended that it is also convenient for the parties to have the trial at Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram and therefore the suit may be transferred to Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. 2. On hearing the learned counsel, I do not find any valid or sufficient ground to order transfer. The transfer was not sought on the ground of the difficulty of the petitioner to conduct the case at Nedumangad; but on the ground that the Family Court, Nedumangad attempted to effect a compromise before the ex parte decree was passed and even thereafter court is not disposing the suit. It is the duty of the Family Court to try Tr.P(C)118/2008 3 for a reconciliation between the parties. Such attempt shall not be misunderstood by the parties as bias to one of the parties. I find no valid or sufficient ground to order transfer. In such cirucmstance, petition is dismissed. Family Court, Nedumangad is directed to dispose the suit as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Tr.P.(C) is disposed of as above. M.Sasidharan Nambiar Judge tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- CRL.R.P.NO. /08 --------------------- ORDER MARCH,2008