S.S. Satheesachandran, J.

1. The above three transfer petitions are filed by the samepetitioner seeking transfer of three cases pending on the file ofthe Family Court, Kottarakkara to the Family Court, Kollam.Petitioner is the wife and the respondent, the husband.Matrimonial disputes of the spouses have given rise to threeproceedings before the Family Court, one of them by the wifeand the two others by the husband.The wife has filedO.P.No.616 of 2010 seeking a decree for return of goldornaments and compensation.Husband has filed two otherpetitions as O.P.Nos.358 of 2011 and O.P.No.830 of 2011, theformer to restrain the wife from collecting the amount on thepolicy taken in her name in the Life Insurance Corporation andthe latter restraining her from entering into the matrimonialhome. All the above three petitions are now pending before theFamily Court, Kottarakkara. Petitioner/wife seeks transfer of thecases to the Family Court, Kollam as indicated earlier.

2. Notice given, the respondent/husband has enteredappearance.I heard the counsel on both sides. Transfer issought for by the wife on the ground that in view of whattranspired earlier with respect to the disposal of a maintenanceclaim prosecuted by her for herself and also for the childrenagainst the husband numbered as M.C.No.143 of 2010 sheapprehends that she will not get a fair disposal in the three casespending before the same court. From the submissions made bythe learned counsel for the petitioner such apprehension wasbased on account of the dismissal of the maintenance claimnumbered as above by the Judge, Family Court.During thependencyof the prosecution of the maintenance claim pursuantto conciliatory steps taken, the wife had joined the husband withthe children. However, such reunion was short-linked and shefiled a petition before the Magistrate Court invoking theprovisions covered by the Protection of Women from DomesticViolence Act. Steps taken by her as above, according to thecounsel, infuriated the learned Judge, Family Court and that hadresulted in dismissal of her maintenance claim. Without even acounter being filed by the respondent in such proceedings thatorder of dismissal rendered by the Judge, Family Court, has beenreversed in revision moved by the wife. Further dilation over theground canvassed by the petitioner/wife on the imputationsmade as above against the Presiding Officer of the Family Courtas regards the circumstances which surrounded the dismissal ofthe maintenance claim mooted by her as M.C.No.143 of 2010, Ifind it is not necessary for disposal of these transfer petitions.The learned counsel for the respondent has handed over a copyof the order dated 11.01.2012 by this Court in the revisionnumbered as R.P.(FC).No.257 of 2011 moved by the wifechallenging the dismissal of M.C.No.143 of 2010 by the FamilyCourt. Paragraph 4 of that decision reads thus:

"On going through the order of the court below itis seen that different sessions of conciliation andmediation were conducted and when conciliationbecame almost successful, it seems that a noticewas issued by the 1st petitioner to the husbandcalling upon him to comply with the order passedby the learned Magistrate under the DomesticViolence Act.This notice produced before thelower courts seems to have infuriated the learnedFamily Court Judge and without going to thedetails of the case, simply dismissed the petition.On going through the order, this Court find itextremely difficult to justify the order now passedby the trial court.It contains no acceptablereasons and the reasons given are faulty. Thereasons given to reject the claim made by thepetitioner and to dismiss the petition are not at alllegally sustainable. It is quite unfortunate that theFamily Court should have passed such an orderaffecting the valuable rights of parties. Hence, theimpugned order is set aside and Family Court isdirected to take the petition on file and dispose itof in accordance with law and in the light of whathas been stated above."

The above observations made by this Court in allowing therevision would indicate that the apprehension entertained by thewife that she would not get a fair trial from the court where thepetitions are now pending cannot be brushed aside are totallyunworthy of any merit.To seek a transfer on the ground thatthere is bias or prejudice on the part of the court and thus therewill be denial of justice, concrete proof to substantiate suchapprehension cannot be insisted upon.Is there reasonableground to hold so alone will be the outlook of the court to seewhether the request for transfer cannot be brushed aside.Looking at that angle, I find that in the given facts of the case,the petitioner/wife is justified in seeking a transfer of the twopetitions pending before the Family Court, Kottarakkara to theFamily Court, Kollam. I make it clear that the observations madeby me cannot be construed in any way as casting any aspersionon the Presiding officer of the Family Court, nor even that thepetitioner/wife has shown by sufficient materials or otherwisethat her apprehension so expressed is true and genuine.But Ionly say that the apprehension canvassed by her in the light ofthe circumstances referred to above cannot be brushed aside.

3. O.P.No.616 of 2010 and O.P.Nos.358 and 830 of 2011,all of them pending before the Family Court, Kottarakkara aredirected to be transferred to the Family Court, Kollam. TheJudge, Family Court, Kottarakkara shall transmit the records ofthe above three cases to the Family Court, Kollam without delay.The transferee court, on receipt of the records, shall give noticeto the parties for appearance.

Subject to the above directions, the transfer petitions aredisposed of.