The court emphasized that while transfers of family court cases can occur, continuity with the same judge interacting with children is crucial.

O R D E R

The petitioner has sought for a transfer of the proceedings which are pending before the Family Court, Pathanamthitta to the Family Court, Ernakulam.

2. Earlier the proceedings were filed at Ernakulam and it was transferred to Pathanamthitta since the children were residing within the jurisdiction of the Pathanamthitta court. The petitioner has approached this Court stating that since the case is at the evidence stage and the presence of the children is no longer required, it is immaterial whether the case is heard at Pathanamthitta or at Ernakulam. As other matters are pending before the Family Court at Ernakulam, it will be better that all the cases be consolidated and the evidence be recorded there. At the first blush, the contention appears very attractive.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on the judgment of this Court in Mubassira v. Abdul Nishad and others [Tr.P(C) No.672 of 2023], wherein this Court had expressed an opinion that even in cases where there is a specific jurisdiction granted to a court, transfer can still be ordered in circumstances where the presence of the children is no longer required, after making necessary observation in that regard. There is no quarrel with the above proposition. However, in the case at hand, it can be seen from Annexure V that the concerned judicial officer had occasion to interact with the children. Transferring the proceedings to another court, where another judicial officer is present, does not appear to be proper. It will be appropriate for the same judge, who has already interacted with the children, to dispose of the case.

In the above circumstances, I do not find any reason to allow the petition. The Transfer Petition is, hence dismissed.

Sd/-