S.M. Subramaniam, J.

The present Transfer petition is filed seeking transfer of I.D.O.P. No. 14 of 2016 from the Principal District Court, Pudukkottai to the Principal District Court, Madurai to be tried along with the petition for restitution of conjugal rights in I.D.O.P. No. 8 of 2015 filed by the petitioner.

2. The respective counsels for both parties are heard.

3. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 04.07.1990 as per Christian rights and customs. Out of the wedlock, two female children born on 24.03.1991 and 24.03.1996 respectively. Peculiarly, after 20 years from the date of marriage, the parties developed misunderstanding and now they are living separately. The petitioner filed I.D.O.P.No.8 of 2015 for restitution of conjugal rights before the Principal Sub Court, Madurai.The respondent has filed a petition for divorce in I.D.O.P.No.14 of 2016, which is pending before the Principal District Court, Pudukkottai.

4. The contention of the petitioner is that the respondent threatened her and she made a complaint before All Women Police Station, Pudukkottai and due to the inaction, she filed Cr.M.P.No.29 of 2016 which is pending before the Mahila Court/Judicial Magistrate, Madurai under Section 190(1) and (200) Cr.P.C. The respondent is coming to Madurai for attending the hearing in Cr.M.P.No.29 of 2016. Further, the respondent is working as Junior Assistant in Agricultural Engineering Department at Pudukkottai and the petitioner is working in a private concern and she has to look after her two daughters and not in a position to travel to Pudukkottai to defend the case filed by the respondent for divorce.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent opposed the petition by stating that the petitioner herself left the matrimonial home along with children by developing misunderstanding and falsely filed the complaint against the petitioner. Further, the petitioner is working at Madurai and she is unable to spend and travel to defend the case at Pudukkottai. Hence, the petition is to be dismissed.

6. In respect of transfer of matrimonial cases, this Court has taken a consistent view that the place of the wife is to be preferred. Hence, the circumstances narrated by the petitioner deserves consideration.

7. In the present case on hand, the petitioner is having grown-up daughters and she has to look after their needs.

8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the respondent is a Government servant and getting good amount of salary more specifically as Junior Engineer and he can travel to Madurai to defend the case and the balance of convenience is in favour of the petitioner and this Court is inclined to consider the case of the petitioner.

9. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent requested this Court to transfer the case from the file of the Principal Sub Court, Pudukkottai to the Principal Sub Court, Madurai. This Court raised a question when the Family Courts are functioning at Madurai, for what purpose the case relating to matrimonial cases should be transferred to the Principal Sub Court, Madurai, which was already flooded with criminal and civil cases and appeals. The respective counsels represented that in Family Court, parties are to be present and in the Principal Sub Court, counsels are required to be present to conduct the case and to avoid the appearance of the parties, they are making such a request. Such request cannot be accepted and the convenience of the parties regarding their appearance cannot be the criteria while transferring the case from one court to another. Once the case is filed by the litigants, it is the duty of the litigants to pursue the case in accordance with law. Such being the position, this Court is curious to look into the provisions of the Family Courts Act and Section 3 reads as follows:

"3. Establishment of Family Courts: (1) For the purpose of exercising the juri