IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Tr.P(C).No. 225 of 2008()
1. RUBLE KURIAKOSE, AGED 33, S/O.KURIAKOSE,
... Petitioner
2. KURIAKOSE, AGED 60 YEARS,
Vs
1. JYOTHI THOMAS, AGED 31 YEARS,
... Respondent
2. MARIAM THOMAS, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
3. JOMY THOMAS, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
4. JOJI THOMAS, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
5. JOLLY, AGED 31 YEARS, W/O.JOJI THOMAS,
For Petitioner :SRI.MANJU ANTONEY
For Respondent :SRI.ABRAHAM GEORGE JACOB
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.P.BALACHANDRAN
Dated :16/01/2009
O R D E R
K.P.BALACHANDRAN, J.
------------------------------------------------
Tr. P. C No.225 of 2008
------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 16th day of January, 2009
ORDER
There is appearance only for R1.
Respondent 2, 4 and 5 are served and there is
no appearance for them. Notice to R3 is
returned again with the report “not known”.
Hence, substitute service is asked for by the
counsel for the petitioner vide I.A.104/09.
Counsel for the first petitioner submits that
the third respondent is the brother of the
first respondent and that in this Transfer
Petition it is not necessary that he also
should be served when all others are served.
Hence, notice to R3 is dispensed with.
2. Heard arguments of counsel on both
sides. The prayer of the petitioners is for
transfer of O.P.540/08, O.P.285/08, O.P.299/08
and M.C.128/08 pending on the file of the
Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor to the
Tr. P. C No.225 of 2008 -2-
Family Court, Pathanamthitta at Thiruvalla.
3. The first respondent is the wife of
the first petitioner. Counsel for the
petitioners submits that the transfer sought
for to the Family Court, Thiruvalla will be
more convenient for the petitioners as well as
to the respondents. Counsel for the first
respondent/wife submits that such a transfer
is not at all convenient to the first
respondent/wife. The counsel for the
petitioners was asked as to whether the first
petitioner is paying maintenance to the first
respondent. He had practically no reply to
submit to the said query. The attempt of the
first petitioner/husband is only to see that
the first respondent/wife is harassed by
getting a transfer of the case from Ettumanoor
to Thiruvalla without even paying maintenance
for her and there is no offer even made on
behalf of the petitioners by their counsel
Tr. P. C No.225 of 2008 -3-
that the first petitioner will pay the entire
amounts due to the first respondent by way of
maintenance and will bear the expenses of the
first respondent’s coming over to the Family
Court, Thiruvalla for the conduct of the
cases.
4. In the circumstances, I see no merit
in the application for transfer. This Transfer
Petition is dismissed.
K.P.BALACHANDRAN,
JUDGE
kns/-