JUDGMENT :

Harisankar V. Menon, J.

Tr. Appeal (c) No.4 of 2024 is filed against the order dated 01.04.2024 in Tr. Petition(C) No.132 of 2024. Tr. Appeal No.5 of 2024 is filed against the order dated 01.04.2024 in Tr. Petition(C) No.827 of 2023 by a learned Single Judge of this Court.

2. The petitioner in Tr. Petition(C) No.132 of 2024 is the husband. The petitioner in Tr. Petition(C) No.827 of 2023 is the wife. The appellant (husband) and the respondent (wife) were married at Onakkoor, Muvattupuzha Taluk. It is alleged that they resided together at the residence of the husband within the jurisdiction of the Family Court, Muvattupuzha. Since their relationship was not cordial, the following petitions were presented:

(i). O.P.No.859 of 2023 is filed by the husband (appellant herein) for divorce under the provisions of the Divorce Act, 1869 before the Family Court, Muvattupuzha.

(ii).The wife filed O.P.No.902 of 2023 seeking divorce before the Family Court, Thalassery.

(iii).The wife filed O.P.No.913 of 2023 for past maintenance before the Family Court, Thalassery.

(iv). The wife filed O.P.No.914 of 2023 before the Family Court, Thalassery seeking the return of gold and money.

3. The wife filed Tr. Petition(C) No.827 of 2023 before this Court, praying for transfer of O.P.No.859 of 2023 filed by the husband before the Family Court, Muvattupuzha to the Family Court, Thalassery. The husband filed Tr. Petition (C) No.132 of 2024 praying for transfer of O.P.No.902 of 2023 filed by the wife before the Family Court, Thalassery to the Family Court, Muvattupuzha.

4. The learned Single Judge of this Court disposed of both transfer petitions filed by the husband and wife by a common judgment dated 01.04.2024. Transfer Petition No.132 of 2024 filed by the husband is dismissed. As regards the Tr. Petition No.827 of 2023 filed by the wife, taking note of the convenience of the wife, the same is allowed and O.P.No.859 of 2023, pending before the Family Court, Muvattupuzha, is withdrawn and transferred to the Family Court, Thalassery.

5. Aggrieved by the dismissal of Tr. Petition(C) No.132 of 2024, the husband has filed Tr. Appeal(C) No.4 of 2024 and as against the judgment in Tr. Petition(C) No.827 of 2023, by which the prayer for transfer by the wife is allowed, Tr. Appeal(C) No.5 of 2024 is filed.

6. On 10.05.2024, both these appeals have been admitted, staying the operation of the judgment impugned. However, the Presiding Officer of the Family Court, Muvattupuzha, has reported by her letter dated 21.05.2024 that the files had already been transferred to the Family Court, Thalassery on 19.04.2024 itself, even before the order of stay is issued by this Court.

7. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-husband and the learned counsel representing the respondent-wife.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant-husband mainly pointed out that the learned Single Judge is not justified in ordering the transfer from the Family Court, Muvattupuzha to the Family Court, Thalassery, without noticing that the Thalassery Court has no jurisdiction in the matter. For this proposition, he relied on the judgment of this Court in Renny Elizaabeth Umman v. Amrutha Raj Baby [2023 (1) KHC 655]. He also points out the provisions of the Divorce Act, 1869 (for short, the ‘Act’), to contend that the Family Court, Thalassery, has no jurisdiction in the matter.

9. The learned counsel for the respondent-wife has sought to justify the transfer ordered by pointing out the circumstances under which the transfer was sought for, as highlighted in the petition filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, the ‘Code’).

10. We have considered the submissions made by either side as well as the connected records.

11. The main contention raised by the appellant is that the learned Single Judge ought to have noticed that the Family Court Thalassery, did not have jurisdiction to try the petition filed by the Husband. He referred to the provisions of Section