IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Tr.P(C).No. 400 of 2010()
1. LIYAKKATH, S/O.MOHAMMEDUNNI,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. UMMU SALMA, D/O.ADAM MUSLIAR,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.T.K.AJITH KUMAR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :06/01/2011
O R D E R
K.T.SANKARAN, J.
------------------------------
Tr.P.(C).No.400 OF 2010
------------------------------
th
Dated this the 6 day of January, 2011
ORDER
The petitioner, who is the husband of the
respondent, seeks transfer of OP No.703 of 2010
(filed by the wife) pending before the Family
Court, Malappuram to the Family Court, Thrissur.
2. The petitioner is residing at Thiruvathra in
Chavavakkad Taluk, Thrissur District. The
respondent belongs to Palappetty in Ponnani Taluk,
Malappuram District. The Family Court having
jurisdiction is indisputably the Family Court,
Malappuram. It is stated that the matrimonial home
is within the jurisdiction of the Family Court,
Thrissur. That means, probably, the Thrissur Family
Court and the Malappuram Family Court have
jurisdiction. O.P.No.703 of 2010 was filed by the
wife before the Family Court, Malappuram, a court
having jurisdiction.
Tr.P.(C).No.400 OF 2010 2
3. The ground for transfer is that the
petitioner has to travel about 100 K.M. to appear
before the Family Court at Malappuram and the
respondent has to travel about 80 K.M. to reach
Malappuram. It is stated that the Family Court,
Thrissur is nearer to the place of both the
parties.
4. The ground stated by the petitioner is not
an adequate ground for transferring the case. The
respondent did not put forward any case that she
has inconvenience to appear before the Family
Court, Malappuram. The additional distance which
the petitioner has to travel is about 20 K.M. when
compared to the distance to be travelled by the
wife to appear before the Family Court, Malappuram.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that under Section 9 of the Family Courts
Act, a duty is cast on every Family Court to assist
Tr.P.(C).No.400 OF 2010 3
and persuade the parties to arrive at a settlement.
In the present case, the Family Court did not make
any such an attempt, contents the counsel. That is
not a ground for transfer of the case. The
petitioner can very well point out the same before
the Family Court. If the procedure prescribed by
the Family Court is not followed, the petitioner
can point out the same before the Appellate Court,
as well.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the respondent has claimed an amount
of Rs.7,93,100/- as the value of the gold ornaments
allegedly appropriated by the petitioner. In
ground (F), it is stated by the petitioner as
follows:
“F. Now it is quite common in Family Court,
Malappuram ordering the return of the Gold
ornaments shown in the marriage photograph
produced before it without any evidence to
show that those were original gold
ornaments. Now the respondent herein has
claimed an amount of Rs.7,93,100/- as the
value of Gold ornaments and money allegedly
she had and misappropriated by the
petitioner. The petitioner is sure that ifTr.P.(C).No.400 OF 2010 4
the trial of the above case is held at
Family Court, Malappuram, it will award the
entire amount claimed in the petition
without any valid evidence.”
7. I do not think that this is a ground for
transfer of the case from Family Court, Malappuram.
If this ground is a ground for transfer, all
similar cases pending before the Family Court,
Malappuram should be transferred to some other
courts. If the petitioner is aggrieved by any
order passed by the Family Court, he would be free
to raise all the contentions in the appeal.
No grounds are made out to transfer the case as
prayed for. The Transfer Petition is accordingly
dismissed.
K.T.SANKARAN,
cms JUDGE.