IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2009 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1931 Tr.Appeal(C).No. 7 of 2009() ---------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN TR. P(C). 332/2008 APPELLANT/RESPONDENT: --------------------------------- MATHAI JOSEPH ALIAS JOSEPH, AGED 50 YEARS,KAKKADU VEEDU, KATTAPPANA VILLAGE & P.O., UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK,IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOICE GEORGE RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: ------------------------- MARYKUTTY JOSEPH,AGED 46 YEARS, MANIMALAKUNNEL VEEDU,THACHAPUZHA, NARIYANANI P.O.,ELANGULAM VILLAGE, KANJIRAPPALLY,KOTTAYAM. ADV. SRI.S.JAMES VINCENT THIS TRANSFER APPEAL(CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/05/2009, ALONG WITH TR. APPEAL 8/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = TR. APPEAL NOS. 7 & 8 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 27TH DAY OF MAY, 2009. J U D G M E N T Raman, J. Matrimonial disputes between the parties were pending before two courts. The divorce petition filed by the husband was pending before the Family Court, Thodupuhza whereas a petition for return of the money and gold ornaments filed by the wife was pending before the Family Court, Ettumanoor. Both of them filed transfer petitions. While the husband sought transfer of the case filed by the wife to the court where his divorce petition is pending, the wife sought transfer of the petition filed by the husband for divorce to the same court where she had applied for return of gold ornaments etc. 2. The main contention raised in the appeal memorandum is that the transfer petition filed by the wife is not maintainable under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The appellant contends that a transfer can be made of a proceeding only to a court competent to try or dispose of the same. According to him, in so far as the divorce petition is concerned, it has TR. APPEALS 7 & 8/2009 :2: to be filed and tried only by a court having jurisdiction in terms of Section 3 (3) of the Divorce Act. According to him, as per Section 3(3) of the Divorce Act, the competent court is the District Court. The "District Court" means, in the case of any petition under the Act the Court of the District Judge within the local limits of whose ordinary jurisdiction or of whose jurisdiction the marriage was solemnized or the husband and wife reside or last resided together. Therefore, according to him, the marriage having solemnised within the local limits of the District Court, at Thodupuzha and also that the husband and wife resided together last with the local limits of the jurisdiction of that court and within the local limits of jurisdiction of the District Court, Thodupuzha, the only court competent to try the divorce petition is the District Court at Thodupuzha. 3. Per contra, it is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that the word 'competent' as stipulated in the section does not mean territorial jurisdiction and as per Section 15 of the Code it is required that the institution of the suit shall be in the court of the lowest grade competent to try the same . According to him, the word "competent" referred to in Section 24 cannot be understood in the same manner as having jurisdiction to try the suit and it can not be meant that the transfer court should also have jurisdiction within the manner of Section 3(3) of the TR. APPEALS 7 & 8/2009 :3: Divorce Act. Otherwise the very object and purpose of the transfer will be defeated. 4. For the limited purpose of deciding this case, it may not be necessary to decide as to what the word "competent" referred to in the section means. Section 8 of the Divorce Act itself provides a specific power of transfer to the High Court as per which the High Court can withdraw any suit or proceeding and transfer it for trial or disposal to the court of any other such District Judge. Thus the very same statute empowers the High Court to transfer a case to any other such District Judge. If that be so, it cannot be said that the transfer court should also have the pecuniary jurisdiction in terms of Section 3(3) of the Act. In the above view, we find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, both the transfer appeals are dismissed. P.R. RAMAN, JUDGE. P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE. KNC/-