JUDGMENT A.K. Basheer, J. 1. These two Transfer Petitions are at the instance of a husband and wife respectively, who have been involved in a series of litigations arising from their matrimonial discord. 2. While the husband in his petition filed under S.407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeks transfer of MC 22/2005 and OP 189/2005 from the file of the Family Court, Thiruvalla to the Family Court, Thrissur, the wife in her petition filed under S.24 of the Code of Civil Procedure prays to transfer OP (Div) 229/2005 from the file of the Family Court, Thrissur to the Family Court, Thiruvalla, to be tried along with the two cases mentioned above. 3. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner/husband that he had married the respondent on the assurance given by her and her parents that she possessed requisite qualification in Nursing. Petitioner wanted an alliance with a girl having such qualification since he thought it would be convenient to get an employment for his wife in Germany, so that he could also obtain a job there later. The marriage was conducted at Irinjalakuda on June 1, 2002. But soon thereafter it was revealed that the respondent did not have any qualification in Nursing and therefore it was impossible for her to get an employment in Germany. When this act of fraud was brought to light, the petitioner/husband had questioned her about this. Very soon it also came to light that the respondent had a love affair with another person before her marriage and that she had agreed for the alliance with the petitioner only because of the compulsion of her parents. 4. Faced with the above developments, the respondent had left the matrimonial home on her own accord. But immediately thereafter she initiated proceedings against the petitioner under S.125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Family Court, Thiruvalla as MC 22/2005. Then the petitioner was constrained to file a petition for divorce under S.10 of the Divorce Act for dissolution of the marriage as OP 229/2005 before the Family Court, Thrissur. It is contended by the petitioner that the respondent had, in retaliation, filed OP 189/2005 before the Family Court, Thiruvalla for return of the money paid to him at the time of the marriage. In this proceeding petitioner's mother (petitioner No. 2) was also impleaded as a corespondent. It is contended by the petitioner that the respondent had, in retaliation, filed OP 189/2005 before the Family Court, Thiruvalla for return of the money paid to him at the time of the marriage. In this proceeding petitioner's mother (petitioner No. 2) was also impleaded as a corespondent. It is in the above circumstances that the petitioner has filed TrP (Crl.) 56/2005 seeking transfer of the two cases pending on the file of the Family Court, Thiruvalla to the Family Court, Thrissur to be tried along with the petition for divorce filed by him against the respondent. 5. The respondent/wife has a totally different story. According to her she was constantly harassed by her husband demanding more dowry and ornaments. Since neither she nor her parents could meet the demands of her husband, the harassment increased, and her life at the matrimonial home became increasingly unbearable. Therefore she was taken back to her parental home in order to save her from physical harm. Since the husband refused to pay any maintenance to her, she was constrained to file MC 22/2005 under S.125 of the CrPC before the Family Court, Thiruvalla. She had also filed OP 189/2005 for return of the money paid to her husband at the time of the marriage. It is contended on behalf of the respondent/wife that the petition for divorce has been filed by her husband before the Family Court, Thrissur only to harass her knowing fully well that it will cause great annoyance and difficulty to her to appear before the Family Court at Thrissur which is far away from her residence at Thiruvalla. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner/husband submits that only the Family Court at Thrissur has got jurisdiction to try any suit or proceeding arising from the matrimonial dispute between the parties, since the marriage had taken place at Irinjalakuda within the territorial jurisdiction of the said Court. The respondent had resided with the petitioner in his residence within the limits of the Family Court, Thrissur. The Family Court at Thiruvalla did not have any jurisdiction at all to entertain the petitions filed by the respondent. It is also contended that his mother has been unnecessarily dragged to the Court and made a corespondent in OP 189/2005 filed by the respondent claiming return of the money, allegedly paid to him, though she had nothing to do with the matrimonial dispute. 7. It is also contended that his mother has been unnecessarily dragged to the Court and made a corespondent in OP 189/2005 filed by the respondent claiming return of the money, allegedly paid to him, though she had nothing to do with the matrimonial dispute. 7. On the contrary, it is contended on behalf of the respondent/wife that she has been unnecessarily dragged to the Family Court at Thrissur only with a view to harass her. It will be convenient for both parties if the petition for divorce is also transferred to the Family Court at Thiruvalla, so that the three cases can be tried and disposed of together. 8. Sri. N. P. Samual, learned counsel for the petitioner/husband contends that only the Family Court at Thrissur has got territorial jurisdiction to entertain a suit or a proceeding of the nature referred to in the Explanation under S.7(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (for short, the Act). Learned counsel lays heavy emphasis on the fact that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was conducted at Irinjalakuda within the territorial limits of Family Court, Thrissur. 9. The above contention is totally misconceived and unsustainable. Explanation to S.7(1) unambiguously shows that "a Family Court shall have and exercise all the jurisdiction exercisable by any District Court or any subordinate Civil Court under any law for the time being in force" in respect of a suit or proceeding between the parties to a marriage for restitution of conjugal rights, judicial separation, dissolution of marriage, etc. or a suit or proceeding for maintenance or in respect of the properties of the parties or of either of them. Admittedly the respondent/wife is residing at Thiruvalla within the territorial limits of the Family Court at Thiruvalla. Therefore she can maintain a suit or proceedings against her husband for return of the money paid to him at the time of marriage before the Family Court at Thiruvalla. More importantly, sub-S.(2) of S.7 postulates that subject to other provisions of the Act, a Family Court shall have the jurisdiction exercisable by a Magistrate of the First Class under Chapter IX of the CrPC. The above statutory provision enables the respondent/wife to make an application for maintenance as provided under S.125 of the Code before the Family Court at Thiruvalla where she is presently residing. The above statutory provision enables the respondent/wife to make an application for maintenance as provided under S.125 of the Code before the Family Court at Thiruvalla where she is presently residing. In that view of the matter also, the contention raised by the petitioner/husband that the Family Court at Thiruvalla does not have jurisdiction to maintain the two petitions filed by the respondent before the said Court cannot be sustained. 10. It is trite that S.24 of the Code of Civil Procedure confers power on the High Court to withdraw any suit, appeal or other proceeding pending in any Court subordinate to it, and transfer the same for trial or disposal to any other subordinate Court, competent to try or dispose of the same. The Family Courts at Thiruvalla and Thrissur are undoubtedly Courts subordinate to the High Court. Therefore this Court is empowered to withdraw any suit, appeal or other proceeding pending before a Family Court and transfer the same to any other for trial and disposal, irrespective of the question whether or not the transferee Court has got competency or territorial jurisdiction to try that case. 11. In Usha v. Palisetty Mohan Rao, AIR 2002 SC 400 , the Supreme Court had held that the question of jurisdiction shall not be construed or interpreted in such a way as to stultify the process of law and thus render the provisions relating to transfer nugatory. In Thomas v. Sunnichan, 2004 KHC 597 : 2004 (2) KLT 420 : ILR 2004 (1) Ker. 615, a learned Single Judge had considered all the above and other incidental issues relating to transfer of matrimonial cases from one Court to the other. This Court took the view that when the transfer sought for is justified, relief cannot be refused to the applicant even if the transferee Court has no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit or proceeding. The identical view taken by this Court in Pappammal v. Bhagavathy Appan, 1984 KHC 370 : 1984 KLT 916 : 1984 KLJ 750 : AIR 1985 Ker. 91 was also considered to by the learned Judge in Sunnichan's case. The identical view taken by this Court in Pappammal v. Bhagavathy Appan, 1984 KHC 370 : 1984 KLT 916 : 1984 KLJ 750 : AIR 1985 Ker. 91 was also considered to by the learned Judge in Sunnichan's case. Therefore the contention raised by the petitioner/husband that only the Family Court at Thrissur has got jurisdiction to try any suit or proceeding in relation to the marriage between him and the respondent since their marriage had taken place within the territorial limits of the said Court, cannot be sustained. Though learned counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to a decision of the Karnataka High Court in Syndicate Bank v. Gangadhar and Others (AIR 1992 Karnataka 163) in support of his above contention, I am persuaded to agree with the view taken by this Court in Pappammal v. Bhagavathy Appan, 1984 KHC 370 : 1984 KLT 916 : 1984 KLT 916 ). 12. The other contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner/husband is that the power of this Court to transfer a case under the Divorce Act, 1869 can be only in terms of the provisions contained in S.8 of the Act. S.8 confers power confers power on this Court only to withdraw any suit or proceeding from the Court of any District Judge to any other such District Judge. It is contended that this Court may not therefore be justified in invoking the power under S.24 of the CPC to transfer the divorce petition filed by the petitioner under S.10 of the Divorce Act from the Family Court, Thrissur to the Family Court, Thiruvalla. 13. Yet again, the above contention is totally misconceived. S.8 of the Divorce Act, 1869 which deals with extra ordinary jurisdiction of the High Court reads thus: "8. Extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court.-- The High Court may, whenever it thinks fit, remove and try and determine as a Court of Original Jurisdiction any suit or proceeding instituted under this Act in the Court of any District Judge within the limits of its jurisdiction under this Act. Power to Transfer Suits.-- The High Court may also withdraw any such suit or proceeding, and transfer it for trial or disposal to the Court of any other such District Judge. Power to Transfer Suits.-- The High Court may also withdraw any such suit or proceeding, and transfer it for trial or disposal to the Court of any other such District Judge. The contention of the petitioner appears to be that the power of the High Court to transfer cases coming under the Divorce Act is traceable only to S.8, and that too from the Court of a District Judge to another District Judge. If the above argument is accepted, the very competence or jurisdiction of the Family Court, Thrissur to entertain the application filed by the petitioner under S.10 of the Divorce Act will be suspect. 14. After the introduction of the Family Courts Act, 1984, a Family Court shall be empowered to exercise the jurisdiction "exercisable by any District Court or any subordinate Civil Court under any law for the time being in force in respect of suits and proceedings of the nature referred to in the Explanation" (S.7(1)). The Explanation enumerates the suits or proceedings which will come within the ambit of S.7. It is elucidated in the Explanation that the Family Court shall have and exercise all the jurisdiction in respect of the suit or proceeding between the parties to a marriage for a decree of nullity of marriage or restitution of conjugal rights or judicial separation or dissolution of marriage, etc. S.8 of Family Courts Act further makes it clear that where a Family Court has been established for any area, no District Court or any subordinate Civil Court referred to in sub-S.(1) of S.7 shall, in relation to such area, have or exercise any jurisdiction in respect of any suit or proceeding of the nature referred to in the Explanation to that sub-section. Sub clause (b) of sub-section (1) of S.7 further elucidates that a Family Court shall be deemed, for the purposes of exercising such jurisdiction under such law, to be a District Court. In view of the above statutory provisions in the Family Courts Act, the contention raised by the learned counsel that a petition for divorce under S.10 of the Divorce Act can be transferred only to a District Court and that too only in exercise of the power conferred under S.8 of the said Act cannot be sustained at all. 15. In view of the above statutory provisions in the Family Courts Act, the contention raised by the learned counsel that a petition for divorce under S.10 of the Divorce Act can be transferred only to a District Court and that too only in exercise of the power conferred under S.8 of the said Act cannot be sustained at all. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also invited my attention to sub-section (3) of S.3 of the Divorce Act which reads thus: " "District Court" means, in the case of any petition under this Act, the Court of the District Judge within the local limits of whose ordinary jurisdiction or of whose jurisdiction under this Act, the marriage was solemnised or the husband and wife reside or last resided together." As noticed above, a petition filed under the Divorce Act can be tried and disposed of only by a Family Court after the establishment of the Family Courts as contemplated under the provisions of the Family Courts Act, 1984. S.8 of Act 1984 excludes or takes away the jurisdiction of a District Court or any subordinate Civil Court to deal with any suit or proceeding of the nature referred to in the explanation to S.7(1) of Act 1984. Therefore the contention raised by the petitioner based on Sections 3(3) and 8 of the Divorce Act is wholly misconceived and unsustainable. Though learned counsel for the petitioner/husband placed heavy reliance on the decisions in Surendranath v. Malati, AIR (29) 1942 Calcutta 546 and Ganga Ram Dohrey v. State of U.P., AIR 2002 Allahabad 238 and contended that the provisions contained in a special statute shall exclude the application of S.24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, I am not persuaded to accept the above contention for the reasons stated above. 16. In Ganga Ram Dohrey's case (supra), the Allahabad High Court had considered the question whether an appeal preferred under the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act could be transferred from the Court of Additional District Judge, Lucknow to any other competent Court having the same jurisdiction by invoking the power under S.24 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In Ganga Ram Dohrey's case (supra), the Allahabad High Court had considered the question whether an appeal preferred under the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act could be transferred from the Court of Additional District Judge, Lucknow to any other competent Court having the same jurisdiction by invoking the power under S.24 of the Code of Civil Procedure. After referring to the provisions contained in the above Act and Rules, the learned Judge of the Allahabad High Court took the view that the Act being a special law, the power under S.24 of the Code could not be invoked. In Malati's case (supra) the Calcutta High Court held that in view of the express provision contained in S.8 of the Divorce Act, 1869 regulating the transfer of a suit or proceeding under the Act from the Court of one District Judge to the Court of another District Judge, the provisions contained in S.24 of the Code would have no application to suits or proceedings under the above Act. Having gone through the above two judgments carefully, I am satisfied that the dicta laid down in those cases have no application to the facts and circumstances of this case for the reasons stated above. 17. It is contended that the respondent/wife being a young woman, she may not find it difficult at all to undertake the necessary journeys from Thiruvalla to Thrissur. On the contrary, petitioner No. 2, the mother of the petitioner/husband, who is an aged lady, will find it extremely inconvenient to go from Thrissur to Thiruvalla to attend the proceedings in OP 189/2005. The above contention is also liable to be rejected for reasons more than one. In the proceeding pending against petitioner No. 2, she need not necessarily appear in person. She can be represented by a counsel. More importantly the respondent/wife is prosecuting the two petitions filed by her before the Family Court at Thiruvalla, one of which is an application for maintenance under S.125 CrPC. It has been asserted by the respondent/wife that she hails from a poor family, whereas the petitioner/husband is admittedly employed in the Gulf. It is further stated by respondent wife that it may be impossible for her to undertake frequent journeys from Thiruvalla to Thrissur since she may have to seek the assistance of some other person to accompany her. It has been asserted by the respondent/wife that she hails from a poor family, whereas the petitioner/husband is admittedly employed in the Gulf. It is further stated by respondent wife that it may be impossible for her to undertake frequent journeys from Thiruvalla to Thrissur since she may have to seek the assistance of some other person to accompany her. Learned counsel for the respondent has invited my attention to some of the decisions of the Apex Court in this connection which have uniformly held that the inconvenience and hardships that are likely to be suffered by a female spouse while prosecuting or defending a proceedings under the Family Courts Act have to be always borne in mind when applications for transfer are being considered. 18. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances I am satisfied that the petition filed by respondent/wife is liable to be allowed, which means that the petition filed by the husband shall fail. Accordingly TrP (C) 90/2005 is allowed. OP (Div) 229/2005 pending on the file of the Family Court, Thrissur shall stand transferred to the file of the Family Court Thiruvalla, to be tried along with MC No. 22/2005 and OP 189/2005 pending on the file of the said Court. TrP (Crl.) 56/2005 is dismissed.