IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 11TH JULY 2008 / 20TH ASHADHA 1930 Tr.P(C).No. 161 of 2008() ------------------------- O.S.54/2007 of MUNSIFF'S COURT, RANNI .................... PETITIONER/DEFENDANT: --------------------- JOYCEE OLIVER, W/O.FRANK OLIVER, SIYON HOUSE, DHARMADAM, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.T.BALAN SMT.B.VIJUBALA RESPONDENT/ PLAINTIFF: ---------------------- A.G.FRANK OLIVER, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.GEORGE KOSY, ANAKUZHIYIL HOUSE, RANNI. THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ........................................... TR.P(C).No. 161 OF 2008 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY, 2008 ORDER The defendant in O.S.54 of 2007 on the file of Munsiff Court, Ranni is the petitioner. Respondent is her husband. The relationship is admittedly strained for the last few years. O.P(div) 117 of 2006 filed by petitioner is pending before Family Court, Kannur. So also, M.C.132 of 2007 claiming maintenance was disposed and respondent was directed to pay maintenance to both petitioner and three daughters. O.P.179 of 2007 was also filed before Family Court, claiming past maintenance. O.S.54 of 2007 was filed by respondent, claiming a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining petitioner from trespassing into the plaint schedule property situated within the jurisdiction of Munsiff Court, Ranni. This petition is filed to transfer that suit to Ranni, contending that petition for dissolution of marriage and past maintenance are pending before Family Court, Kannur and petitioner is residing at Thalassery and in such circumstances, it is not possible for her to travel to Ranni and conduct the case. 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner submitted TPC 161/2008 2 that as petitioner is a resident of Thalassery and petitions are pending before Family Court, Kannur and respondent has to attend that court, it may not prejudice him, if the pending suit from Munsiff Court, Ranni is also transferred to Kannur. But on going through the petition, I do not find that the suit pending before Munsiff Court, Ranni is a suit which should be transferred to Family Court. 3. The argument of the learned counsel is that as provided under Section 7(c) of Family Court Act, a suit or proceeding between the parties to a marriage with respect to the properties of the parties, or either of them, is a matter to be decided by the Family Court and therefore suit is to be transferred to Family Court, Kannur. If the case of petitioner is based on Section 7, petitioner has to file an application before Munsiff Court, as provided under Section 7 of the Act disputing jurisdiction of the court. If it is found that Family Court is competent to try the suit, petitioner is at liberty to move for a transfer from Thodupuzha to Kannur at that stage. Petition is disposed accordingly. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE lgk/-