IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Tr.P(C).No. 308 of 2008()
1. A.K.MUNEER, S/O.KHALID, THENAMMACKAL
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SUHANA, D/O.DR.B.A.SHAMSUDHEEN,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF
For Respondent :SRI.S.M.ALTHAF
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.P.BALACHANDRAN
Dated :20/01/2009
O R D E R
K.P. Balachandran, J.
--------------------------
Tr.P.(C)No.308 of 2008
--------------------------
ORDER
Counsel for the respondent/wife submits that
objection has been filed by the petitioner/husband
in O.P.No.244/08 in compliance with the directions
of this Court in the order dated 19.12.2008.
2. The prayer of the petitioner/husband, who
is the respondent in O.P.No.244/08 filed by the
respondent/wife before the Family Court, Kottayam
at Ettumanoor, is to transfer the said original
petition to the Family Court, Alappuzha or to the
Family Court, Ernakulam on the ground that the
Judge in the Family Court, Ettumanoor is acting in
a one sided manner and is prejudiced against him as
if he is unnecessarily denying divorce; that he was
not permitted to file his written objection and
that no proper counselling was also done.
3. It is seen that O.P.No.244/08 was filed by
the respondent/wife on 3.3.2008 and even as on
19.11.2008, when this transfer petition was filed,
TPC 308/08 2
the petitioner/husband had not filed objection.
However, pursuant to the direction of this Court in
the order dated 19.12.2008, he filed objection on
2.1.2009, taking almost one year.
4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that
objection was not filed as counselling was not
over. In fact, counselling should have been done
after filing of the objection and not before filing
of the objection, though nothing prevents an effort
being made at conciliation even before filing of
the objection. The grievance of the petitioner is
that the Judge of the Family Court appears to have
been prejudiced against him as if he is
unnecessarily denying divorce. It is the duty of
the Family Court, dealing with family matters, to
make all attempts at conciliation to unite the
parties to the marriage and if the Judge is
convinced that the marital tie has broken down
beyond repair, to advise the parties for a divorce
so as to avoid further harassment to both sides.
TPC 308/08 3
Any effort made by a Family Court Judge in that
direction cannot be interpreted as a partisan
attitude and be made use of to apply for transfer
of the original petition to some other Family
Court. I do not see any merit in the transfer
petition, especially when the counsel for the
respondent/wife submits that a counsel at Kottayam
had been engaged by the wife and if at all a
transfer is ordered either to Alappuzha or to
Ernakulam another Lawyer may have to be engaged
undergoing all the ordeal thereof, for which the
respondent is not capable.
In the circumstances, refusing to allow the
transfer prayed for by the petitioner/husband, I
dismiss this transfer petition.
20th January, 2009 (K.P.Balachandran, Judge)
tkv