Judgment :- 1. The petition is by wife Geetha for transfer of O.P. No. 27 of 1995 on the file of Sub-Court, Arni, to the file of Sub Court, Irinjlakuda, Kerala State. 2. As per the allegations she finds it difficult to attend the Court at Arni as she is presently residing at Irinjalkuda, Trichur District. She has further alleged that whenever she visits Arni for attending the case there was threat for life from her husband. 3. In the counter these allegations have been denied by the husband-respondent. 4. The main ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that she has to come to Arni from Irinjalkuda and it is very difficult for her since mere are two children for her. Further, it is stated that she has filed O.P. No. 849 of 1997 on the file of Sub Court, Trichur for maintenance. Therefore, the common question of law and facts arise in both the cases. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also cited a decision reported in Y. Mallamma and another v. The Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Madras - 108 ( 1994 (2) L.W. 395 ) in support of his contention that this Court has jurisdiction to order transfer of the O.P. No. 27 of 1995 pending on the file of Subordinate Judge, Arni to the file of Subordinate Judge, Irinjalkuda even though the said Court is not situated within jurisdiction of this Court and it is Subordinate to the High Court of Kerala. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand contended that the petition O.P. No. 27 of 1995 is of the year 1995 and for the past two years the same was pending before the Sub Court Arni and the said petition is ripe for trial. At this stage the petitioner for transfer to the Sub Court Irinjalkuda is not maintainable. He has also contended that even according to the petitioner the Court at Arni has no jurisdiction. Section 23 of Code of Civil Procedure is not applicable as there is a plea of want of jurisdiction. According to the learned counsel, only when there is no dispute with reference to the jurisdiction of the Court where the matter is pending and the Court to which is transferred, Section 23 is applicable. 7. Section 23 of Code of Civil Procedure is not applicable as there is a plea of want of jurisdiction. According to the learned counsel, only when there is no dispute with reference to the jurisdiction of the Court where the matter is pending and the Court to which is transferred, Section 23 is applicable. 7. As far as the legal position is concerned, Section 23 (3) contemplates that if two Courts are having jurisdiction and situate in two different States having different High Courts, then one of the High Courts can transfer the suit pending in a Court Subordinate to it to another Subordinate Court of another High Court. In my view the emphasis is that both Courts must have jurisdiction. Merely because one party disputes the jurisdiction of one Court that will not take away the power of the High Court under Section 23 (3) of Code of Civil Procedure. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent cited a decision reported in Firm Babu Lal Girdhari Lal v. Seth Kutumal (AIR 1941 Allahabad, 27) wherein the Allahabad High Court has taken the view that A who has filed a suit against B at Dhanbad Court, while B instituted a suit against A at Banares Court and contends that Banares Court has no jurisdiction, though filed on the same cause of action at Banares High Court, cannot ask for transfer from Dhanbad to Banares Court. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent contends that Section 23 postulates that the Courts concerned must have jurisdiction and it is therefore obvious that in view of the plea of want of jurisdiction which has been taken by the applicant, the applicant cannot succeed. The underlying principle in that case is that when the petitioner contended that Banares Court had no jurisdiction and yet wanted his case to be transferred to that Court, he should not be allowed to succeed. But the principle underlying Section 23 is different and what is contemplated under Section 23 is that both the Courts must have jurisdiction and it is the matter for the Court before which the transfer application is moved to decide. 10. In this case there is no dispute that the petitioner is residing at Irinjalkuda, and that the marriage of the petitioner and the respondent had taken place near Irinjalkuda. 10. In this case there is no dispute that the petitioner is residing at Irinjalkuda, and that the marriage of the petitioner and the respondent had taken place near Irinjalkuda. Further, it is also not in dispute that after marriage the parties were living at Cheyyar Town over which the Subordinate Court, Arni is having jurisdiction. When prima facie both the Courts have jurisdiction, the High Court before which the transfer application is moved can take note of the same and order transfer under Section 23(3) of Code of Civil Procedure. 11. We have seen that the original petition was filed by the husband as early as in the year 1995 and the petitioner-wife has been attending the Court at Arni for the last two years. The petition is ripe for trial. Only in 1997 she has filed petition for transfer. That apart she has filed a suit for maintenance also in Sub Court, Trichur only in 1997. Therefore, in my view the petition O.P. No. 27 of 1995 need not be transferred at this stage. However, it is also to be noted that the wife has to travel a long distance from Irinjalkuda to Arni and for attending the Court he has to spend some amounts she has to attend the Court along with some one. Under such circumstances, even though transfer cannot be ordered, the husband who has filed the petition for divorce at Arni should pay the petitioner Rs. 500/-for every hearing when the petitioner attends the Court. The amount should be paid in Court and the learned Subordinate Judge, Arni must make note about the payment. With this direction, the petition for transfer is dismissed. As the Original Petition 27 of 1995 is of the year 1995, learned Subordinate Judge is directed to dispose of the same within a period of six months from to-day.