GOPI Vs. RAJALAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a transfer petition under S.24 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the respondent in O.S. No. 91/94 on the file of the Family Court, Trichur. The 1st respondent in this revision petition filed an application under S.23 and 27 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act before the Family Court, Trichur. There was also a prayer for attaching the property of the defendant. The 1st respondent earlier filed M. C. No. 14/94 before the Family Court, Trichur for maintenance for her as well as for her minor children. Family Court allowed the petition for maintenance granting maintenance allowance of Rs. 300/- per month to the 1st respondent herein, Rs. 250/- each per month to the two minor sons and Rs. 200/- per month to the another minor son. Revision Petition filed against that order is pending before that Court. As ordered by this Court, amount in that case was deposited.

(2.) Now, the petitioner herein wants to transfer the case from the Family Court, Trichur to the Family Court, Ernakulam or to any other Family Courts in the nearby districts. The only ground taken by the petitioner for transferring the suit O.S. 91/94 is that the very same court earlier decided M.C. No. 14/94. This is not a ground for transferring a petition. Merely because an earlier maintenance application was decided against the petitioner by that Court, and revision petition is filed against that decision is pending before this Court, it cannot be contended that subsequent application cannot be tried in that court and it should be transferred. There is no allegation of mala fides raised by the petitioner against the Presiding Officer.

(3.) Transfer of a case from one Court to another is a serious matter, because it indirectly casts doubt, on the integrity and capability of the Presiding Officer of the Court from which transfer is sought. Mere apprehension of the petitioner that he may riot get justice is not enough for transferring a case. Only in very special circumstances, case can be transferred from one Court to another. A judicial order made by a Judge cannot be a ground for transferring the subsequent suits. In G. Lakshmi Ammal v. Elumalai Chettiar ( AIR 1981 Mad. 24 ) it was held that mere fact that a Judge while deciding an earlier case had made certain remarks is not a ground for transfer of a subsequent case on the same point before him. If the transfer is allowed, the respondents (a lady with 2 minor children) will be put to unnecessary difficulties to appear before the Family Court in another district. No valid ground is made out by the petitioner in this case to transfer of the case under S.24 of the C.P.C. There is no merit in this C. M. C. It is accordingly dismissed.