The jurisdiction for child custody cases is determined by the child's ordinary residence, and transfer petitions must demonstrate sufficient grounds to avoid undermining public trust in the judiciary.

ORDER :

K. Natarajan, J.

All the three cases filed by the petitioner husband for transferring OP (G & W)No.921/2021, OP No.854/2020 & OP (HMA)No.920/2021 pending on the file of Family Court, Chavara to Family Court, Ernakulam or any other Courts in Kerala.

2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the respondents.

3. The case of the petitioners is that the petitioner husband filed OP (G & W) No.921/2021 for child custody before the Family Court, Ernakulam and another OP (HMA) No.920/2021 before the Family Court, Ernakulam for divorce and the respondent wife filed OP No.854/2020 on the file of Family Court, Chavara for recovery of money and gold ornaments and after filing the transfer petitions before the High Court, the OP (G & W) No.921/21 has been transferred from Family Court, Ernakulam to Family Court, Chavara to try along with OP No.854/2020. Further, the case of the parties that now the matter is came before the Family court, Chavara for evidence and at this stage, the petitioner husband filed these three petitions for transferting all the three cases to Family Court, Ernakulam or any other Courts except Family Court, Chavara.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the Family Court, Chavara is prejudiced against the petitioner and not passing the orders on IAs filed by the petitioner and purposely make those applications becomes infructuous. Further, it is contended that the said applications filed by the petitioner seeking interim custody of the child during the summer vacation, which was filed in March 2025 but no order was passed. However, an order came to be passed by granting visitation rights to see the child at Family Court, Chavara in the family court premises by giving an alternative day to travel from Ernakulam to Chavara. Therefore, the petitioner forced to challenge the same before this Court and got set aside the order and obtained the interim custody of the child continuously for three days and even the Family Court commented the petitioner in an abusing way stating that he is a fraud. There are various applications filed before the Family Court, Chavara by the petitioner, but not passing any orders on it. The Presiding Officer of the Family Court, Chavara has commented towards the petitioner, hence prayed for transferring the cases to some other courts, as he will not get any justice from the Family Court, Chavara.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent objected to the petitions contending that previously the petitioner filed Tr.P.C before this Court in OP No.110/21 which came to be dismissed and TrP.(C)No. 40/21 filed by the respondent wife, has been allowed. These two cases pending before the Family Court, Ernakulam have been withdrawn and transferred to Family Court, Chavara. This aspect has been suppressed by the petitioner in this petition and the petitioner counsel is not ready to cross examine the witness even though the witness is present and examination in chief evidence is completed. The counsel stated that he will not cross examine the witness therefore, the trial court closed the cross examination as nil. The very next day filed an application to recall the witness and simultaneously filed a petition for transfer of the cases from the Family court, Chavara. The petitioners are filing application after application, more than 24 applications filed to harass the respondent as well as obstructing the court for smooth functioning of the cases. Therefore, the petition shall not be allowed. Hence prayed for dismissal of the petition.

6. The learned counsel for the respondent also argued that as per Section 9 of the Guardian and Wards Act, the peti