The husband in a matrimonial dispute has filed the above Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition seeking to transfer H.M.O.P.No.407 of 2016, pending on the file of Sub Court, Poonamallee to be tried along with O.P.No. 3271 of 2014, on the file of III Additional Family court at Chennai.

2. The case of the Petitioner/husband is that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized in the year 2013 at New Woodlands, Mylapore. Though they initially lived in Singapore, due to misunderstanding between the petitioner and respondent, they got separated from the matrimonial home. The respondent/wife filed O.P.No. 3271 of 2014, on the file of the III Additional Family Judge, Chennai, for divorce. After the service of notice, the petitioner who was the respondent in the said O.P., has filed his counter affidavit on 07.04.2016, almost after 2 years and counselings were held between the parties. In the meanwhile, the trial in the O.P.No.3271 of 2014 has started. Whileso, the petitioner/husband had filed H.M.O.P.No.407 of 2016, on the file of Sub Court at Poonamalle, for restitution of conjugal rights and the said O.P. is now sought to be transferred to the Family court, Chennai.

3. The only question that has to be decided in the petition is that whether the subsequent O.P. filed by the petitioner/husband should be transferred to the Family Court, Chennai to be tried along with O.P.No.3271 of 2014.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner/husband has stated that the parties in both the O.P. s are same, excepting the reliefs sought for are different.

5. Admittedly, the respondent had filed the petition for restitution of conjugal rights, subsequent to the filing of wife s petition for divorce. The petitioner also had knowledge about the O.P. filed by the wife. He has also filed his counter and the trial had commenced and it is almost in the completion stage. Whileso, the husband had filed the subsequent O.P. for restitution of conjugal rights on second thought. It appears from the records that the said O.P. has been filed after filing the counter in the O.P. filed by the wife for divorce. There is no valid explanation given by the petitioner as to why the O.P. for restitution of conjugal rights was filed before the Sub Court, Poonamallee when the marriage was solemnized in Hotel Woodlands, which is within the city, giving rise to jurisdiction to Family court, Chennai. Even otherwise it was open to the petitioner to have filed the transfer petition at the earliest before the commencement of the trial in O.P.No. 3271 of 2014. Admittedly, when both parties are travelling from different parts of the world, their intention should be to complete the trial at the earliest and take an order. When the respondent counsel was asked as to why the wife had not made an attempt to transfer the O.P. filed by her husband to try along with the O.P. filed by her, it is stated that though the H.M.O.P.No.407 of 2016 was filed by her husband in the year 2016, notice was served on the respondent/wife only in the year 2017. Immediately, the respondent/wife has filed her counter on 22.06.2017 and thereafter this petition for transfer came to be filed. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that the petitioner has filed this petition only to vex the respondent and to drag on the proceedings. This transfer petition filed, according to her is an abuse of process of law and it has delayed and obstructed the principles of natural justice.

6. It is true that if the matter is not transferred it may lead to conflict of Judgments. However, sofaras the matrimonial matter is concerned, cause of action for divorce is cruelty and the same is not the cause of action for restitution. Infact the Judgment that may be passed in the O.P.No.3271 of 2014 for divorce will have bearing on the O.P.No.407 of 2016, before the Sub Court Poonamallee. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent, the O.P. filed before the Family Court, C