IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Tr.P(C).No. 51 of 2008()
1. VIKRAMAN, S/O.JANARDANAN CHETTIAR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. ANITHA, AGED 39,
... Respondent
2. VICHU VIKRAM, MINOR, AGED 16 YEARS,
For Petitioner :SRI.MVS.NAMBOOTHIRY
For Respondent :SRI.ALEXANDER GEORGE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :04/06/2008
O R D E R
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
...........................................
TR.P(C).No.51 OF 2008
............................................
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE, 2008
ORDER
Petitioner is the husband of first respondent. This
petition is filed to transfer O.S.18 of 2005 pending before
Family Court, Kottarakara to some other Family Court.
Petitioner has also sought to transfer O.P.323 of 2006, filed by
him before the same Family Court to another court, contending
that though that O.P was dismissed, a petition for restoration is
pending and therefore it is also to be transferred.
2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner and
respondents were heard. The argument of learned counsel
appearing for petitioner is that petitioner will not get justice
from the Family Court. It was submitted that though O.P 323 of
2006 was dismissed for default on 3.12.2007 and I.A.25 of 2008
was filed for restoration of the same, no order was passed in that
application. It was also submitted that O.S.18 of 2005, evidence
was closed on 7.6.2007 and in spite of 18 posting dates,
arguments were not heard and learned Family Judge, in open
court, directed petitioner to accept a paltry sum of Rs.25,000/-
and to relinquish his claim over the property in favour of
TP(C) 51/2008 2
respondent and in such circumstances, petitioner is not
expecting to get justice from that court and prays for
transferring the cases to some other court.
3. Learned counsel appearing for respondents opposed the
prayer, disputing the allegations raised against the Judge. A
report was called for, from the Family Court. The report of
learned Judge shows that even though the evidence was closed,
evidence was thereafter reopened on several occasions on
account of the petitions filed both by petitioner as well as by
respondents. In such circumstances, failure to dispose the suit
after closing the evidence is not a ground to order transfer.
Learned counsel vehemently argued that though learned Judge
of the Family Court denied the allegations raised in the petition,
from the conduct of the learned Judge, petitioner is not
expecting to get justice from the court and in such
circumstances, as justice should also appear to be done, cases
are to be transferred to another court.
4. On hearing the arguments of learned counsel and also
going through the report submitted by Family Court, I do not
find that this is a fit case to transfer the cases from Family
Court, Kottarakara as sought for. The duties of a Judge of Family
TP(C) 51/2008 3
Courts involves intervention by Judge to arrive at settlement
between the parties. Because of the stiff fight between the
parties, there is possibility of misunderstanding the function of
the Presiding Officer. It cannot be expected that the
suggestions made by the Judge at the time of the attempt to
arrive at a settlement would weigh with the Judge at the time of
final disposal of the case. Judicial training and experience of the
Judge would always outweigh any other misconceptions. The
Judge will definitely dispose the case only on the evidence on
record and not on the suggestions made at the time of arriving at
a settlement. In such circumstances, petition is dismissed.
Learned Judge is directed to dispose O.S.18 of 2005, without
further delay and not to be prejudiced by any of the allegations
raised in this petition. Learned Sub Judge is also directed to
dispose I.A.25 of 2008 in O.P.323 of 2006 without further delay.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE
lgk/-