Sujai Jayakumar v. Nirmal Raj (Tr.P(C).Nos.682 & 683 of 2017)

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** **WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017/22ND AGRAHAYANA, 1939** ## **Tr.P(C).No. 682 of 2017 ()** **--------------------------OP(HMA) 181/2017 of FAMILY COURT, ATTINGAL TO FAMILY COURT, NEDUMANGAD -------------** **PETITIONER/PETITIONER :** **------------------------------------** **SUJAI JAYAKUMAR AGED 27 YEARS, D/O. JAYAKUMAR, VALIYAVILA VEEDU, THANNIMOODU, CHERUNNIYOOR, CHERUNNIYOOR VILLAGE** **BY ADV. SRI.M.DINESH** ## **RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:** **------------------------------------------** **NIRMAL RAJ, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O. RAJENDRAN, USHA MANDIRAM, VENNICODE, VARKALA TALUK - 695141** **BY ADV. SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE** **THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13-12-2017, ALONG WITH TPC. 683/2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **bp** **Tr.P(C).No. 682 of 2017 ()** ## **-----------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES :** **----------------------------------------** **ANNEXURE A1: COPY OF THE OP (HMA) NO. 181/2017 FILED BEFORE FAMILY COURT, ATTINGAL.** **RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES : NIL.** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A. TO JUDGE** **bp** ## **ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.** ## **-------------------------------------------------------** ## **Tr.P.(C) Nos.682 & 683 of 2017** ## **-------------------------------------------------------** **Dated this the 13[th] day of December, 2017** ## **O R D E R** The main prayer in Tr.P.C. No.682/2017 is as follows: “To transfer O.P. (HMA) No.181/2017, pending on the file of the Family Court, Attingal to Family Court, Nedumangad in the interest of justice.” 2. Heard Sri. M.Dinesh, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in both these cases and also Sri.Varghese C. Kuriakose, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent (husband). 3. Respondents 2 and 3 (who are the parents of the respondent husband) had entered appearance in person and made their submissions. 4. The petitioner in Tr.P.C. No.682 of 2017 is the wife Tr.P.(C) Nos.682 & 683 of 2017 -2- of the respondent therein. She is also the petitioner in Tr.P.C. No.683 of 2017 in which the first respondent is the husband and respondents 2 and 3 are her mother-in-law and father-in-law respectively. Due to difference of opinion between the parties, it has led to matrimonial dispute. It is stated that the petitioner has filed O.P.(HMA) No.181 of 2017 before the Family Court, Attingal seeking dissolution of marriage and the said dissolution is the subject matter of Tr.P.C. No.682/2017. The first petitioner in Tr.P.C. No.683 of 2017 is the petitioner in Tr.P.C. No.682 of 2017 and the second petitioner in Tr.P.C. No.683 of 2017 is the minor child. The petitioners in Tr.P.C. No.683 of 2017 have filed O.P. No.931 of 2016 before the Family Court, Attingal seeking recovery of money, maintenance and gold ornaments and the said O.P. is the subject matter of Tr.P.C. No.683 of 2017. It is the common ground that all the Tr.P.(C) Nos.682 & 683 of 2017 -3- parties concerned are residing at Cherunniyoor which is close to Attingal. The petitioner herself has instituted the above said proceedings before the Family Court, Attingal. It is stated by the petitioner that the third respondent in Tr.P.C. No.682 of 2017 (father-in-law) is a legal practitioner, who is having practice at Attingal and that he has got considerable influence in the Attingal Bar and the Bench. It is also the case of the petitioner that the husband is also a legal practitioner in Thiruvananthapuram and that, in the interest of justice, the case is now pending at Attingal which is transferred to a third venue at Nedumangad. The said plea is seriously opposed by the respondents concerned. 5. It is also the common ground that only the counselling process have commenced. The second and third respondent have filed separate counter affidavits. The Tr.P.(C) Nos.682 & 683 of 2017 -4- third respondent (father-in-law) has stated in his affidavit that he is not a member of the Attingal Bar Association and that he is having cases at Attingal, Nedumangad or Kollam and that there is no reason for the first petitioner in Tr.P.C. No.683 of 2017 to apprehend that a fair disposal of the case is not possible due to the third respondents' alleged influence, etc. There are no materials before this Court to probablise or believe the said allegations made by the petitioner so as to convince that there is a reasonable likelihood of bias. This Court in **Jain Paul Kuriakose v. Asha Babu** reported in [2012(4) KLT 651] = [2012 KHC 2957] has held that the mere fact that the respondent therein, who is the wife of the petitioner, is an advocate practicing before different courts in the district including the family court concerned is not a valid reason to attribute bias against the Presiding officer and that family disputes Tr.P.(C) Nos.682 & 683 of 2017 -5- are sensitive in character in which the judges of the Family Court have to play a greater participatory role. In the light of these aspects, this Court is not inclined to accede to the request to transfer at this stage based on the present allegations made by the petitioner. 6. Sri. M. Dinesh, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, even in this matter, the respondent husband has appeared through counsel and the father-in-law and mother-in-law has chosen to appear as party in person and that the petitioner apprehends that the involvement of the father-in-law as a party in person even at the Family Court at Attingal would create atmosphere which is not suitable for the smooth conduct of litigation. This Court is not in a position as of now, to countenance such a plea as the proceedings on the judicial side has not so far seriously started. However, this Court would call Tr.P.(C) Nos.682 & 683 of 2017 -6- upon the parties concerned to proceed with the litigation in a dispassionate and fair manner, so as to leave no scope for any allegations. This Court would also call upon the third respondent (father-in-law) who is a senior legal practitioner that necessary approach may be made to ensure that scope for any such allegations that may be raised by the petitioner may be avoided and to ensure that the fair and conducive atmosphere is created for the smooth conduct of litigation, which can only be for the beneficial interest of all concerned. It is also made clear that in case, the petitioner has any such complaints in future, it is open to her to bring any such legitimate aspects to the notice of the family court concerned and further that if she has any further grievances in that regard, it would be open to her to approach this Court in appropriate proceedings in the manner known to law. Tr.P.(C) Nos.682 & 683 of 2017 -7- 7. It is also ordered in the interest of justice, that the Family Court will take expeditious steps to ensure that the rival parties are referred to the nearest mediation centre, so as to ensure that all things are aforesaid taken for such mediatory efforts. In the light of these aspects, this Court is not inclined to consider the plea for transfer as of now and accordingly, these transfer petitions will stand finally dismissed. Sd/- **ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE** bpr //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE