JUDGMENT : Devan Ramachandran , J. The petitioner challenges Ext.P10 order of the learned Family Court, Palakkad, dismissing his application, namely IA No.3/2024 in OP No.660/2024. 2. The aforementioned Original Petition, namely OP No.660/2024, was filed by the petitioner seeking an order against the respondent from prosecuting a petition for divorce filed by her before a Court in Singapore. Along with the Original Petition, he filed IA No.3/2024 seeking an interim injunction against the respondent; but this has now been rejected by the learned Family Court, through Ext.P10. 3. Sri.Jacob Sebastian – appearing for the petitioner, argued that the findings of the learned Family Court are in error, particularly when the respondent herself volunteered to submit to the jurisdiction of the Indian Court, though having filed an application for divorce before the Family Justice Court of the Republic of Singapore. In substantiation of this argument, Sri.Jacob Sebastian relied upon Ext.R1(i) produced by the respondent before us, namely a copy of the Transfer Petition bearing Tr.P.(C) No.418/2023, in which Ext.R1(e) judgment was delivered by a learned Judge of this Court. He contended that when the respondent averred in the Transfer Petition that she wanted the divorce petition filed by his client in the learned Family Court, Palakkad, to be transferred to the learned Family Court, Kozhikode, where she had instituted OP No.787/2023 against him and his mother for recovery of gold and money, it was impermissible for the learned Family Court to have issued the impugned order and to have denied the anti-suit injunction that his client had sought. He reiteratingly pointed out to us that the averments in the Transfer Petition are to the specific effect that the respondent intends to defend the divorce petition filed by his client before the learned Family Court in Kerala, for which, she has sought its transfer to the learned Family Court, Kozhikode; and hence that the refusal of injunction against her, to thus prevent her from proceeding further in the Family Court in Singapore, is illegal and unlawful. He thus prayed that Ext.P10 be set aside and that his client's application, seeking interim injunction against the respondent, be allowed. 4. He thus prayed that Ext.P10 be set aside and that his client's application, seeking interim injunction against the respondent, be allowed. 4. Sri.Philip T.Varghese – learned counsel for the respondent, in refutation, pointed out that the petition filed by his client, seeking divorce and other reliefs against the petitioner, was filed by her in Singapore on 06.10.2022 as is evident from Ext.P5 produced by the petitioner himself; while, OP No.1318/2022 - now on the files of the learned Family Court, Kozhikode - was instituted by him initially before the learned Family Court, Palakkad (before its transfer), only on 29.10.2022 or later. He argued that, therefore, when his client's case was earlier in point of time, there cannot be any anti-suit injunction against her. 5. Sri.Philip T.Varghese, thereafter, pointed out that, this is not a case where the petitioner did not appear before the learned Family Court in Singapore, but where he did so asserting before it that he would not cooperate since he had already moved the learned Family Court in India. He invited our attention to Ext.R1 - which is an order issued by the Court in Singapore, on the application made by his client - and then showed us Ext.R1(b), which he said is the order issued by the said Court, dismissing an application filed by the petitioner seeking an injunction in it proceeding further, citing the ground that he had moved an application for divorce in India. 6. Sri.Philip T.Varghese then submitted that the matter did not end there because, when Ext.R1(b) order was issued by the Court in Singapore, the petitioner sought leave to file an appeal before the next Court in hierarchy and also for extension of time to do so, but which has also been dismissed through Ext.R1(d) order dated 19.09.2024. He explained that it is, thereafter, that Ext.R1 order was issued by the Singapore Court on 03.02.2025, wherein, it is clearly recorded that the petitioner herein was present in Court, but refused to participate in the hearing and left thereafter. 7. Sri.Philip T.Varghese argued that, therefore, this is a case where the petitioner must be seen to be acting with malice, in filing an Original Petition, solely as a counterblast to the petition for divorce and other reliefs filed by her client in Singapore as early as on 06.10.2022; and further in refusing to participate in the proceedings before the said Court. He contended that this is fortified by the petitioner, then seeking an order of injunction against his client before the learned Family Court, Kozhikode, making it appear as if it was he who had initiated the proceedings first, while it was not. Sri.Philip T.Varghese concluded saying that, in any event, once the Court in Singapore has already issued Ext.R1 on 03.02.2025, an anti- suit injunction - as sought for against his client - becomes impermissible and untenable since the said Court is now seized of the matter fully, having issued an interim judgment, which will lead to a final judgment, since the petitioner is refusing to appear before it or to participate in such proceedings. 8. We have evaluated the afore rival positions very carefully on the touchstone of the various materials on record. 9. It is evident from the afore narrative that the argument of Sri.Jacob Sebastian is primarily that, once the respondent had submitted herself to the jurisdiction of the learned Family Court in Kerala – which he asserts is evident from Ext.R1(i) Transfer application filed by her seeking to transfer the divorce petition filed by his client to the learned Family Court, Kozhikode - she cannot now turn around and say that she is entitled to prosecute a petition for the same relief, namely for divorce, before the Court in Singapore. 10. For an assessment of the afore contention, one must go through the averments in the Transfer Petition very carefully. 11. There is no doubt that the Transfer Petition was filed by the respondent herein, wherein, she has averred in its first paragraph itself, that she had filed a petition for interim care/custody of their children as FC/OSG96/2022 before the Family Justice Court of the Republic of Singapore on 07.09.2022 and that she thereafter filed a petition for divorce, as FC/D/4670/2022, before the said Court on 06.11.2022. She also imputes that the respondent filed the petition for divorce in Kerala only as a counterblast; and that it was so instituted in Palakkad knowing fully well that she or her family are not residing there, thus being incapacitated to resist it. It is in such context that the respondent then sought the Original Petition be transferred to the learned Family Court, Kozhikode, where her parents are staying, particularly because she herself had filed OP No.787/2023 before it for recovery of gold ornaments and money from the respondent. It is in such context that the respondent then sought the Original Petition be transferred to the learned Family Court, Kozhikode, where her parents are staying, particularly because she herself had filed OP No.787/2023 before it for recovery of gold ornaments and money from the respondent. Thereafter, she avers in ground No.(C) of the Transfer Petition that common issues will arise for determination in the cases and that witnesses may also be common; and hence that, to avoid multiplicity of trial and waste judicial time and convenience, the matters be heard by the same Court. 12. At first blush, we are unable to fathom the argument of Sri.Jacob Sebastian that, by the above indited averments, the respondent has submitted herself to the jurisdiction of the Court in Kerala. She was only seeking a transfer of the Original Petition, originally filed in the learned Family Court, Palakkad, to the learned Family Court, Kozhikode; and obviously, it is now for her to impel her contentions and to present her defence in OP No.1318/2022 appropriately. Nothing has been placed before us to even indicate that she has filed any pleadings before the learned Family Court, Kozhikode, in the divorce matter – at least, no document having been filed in this case as of now; and hence it is unavailable to assume that she has submitted herself to the jurisdiction of the said Court, merely because she had filed a Transfer Petition seeking the transfer of the Original Petition to the learned Family Court, Kozhikode. This, by itself, cannot lead to a conclusion that she is submitting to the jurisdiction of the learned Family Court, which will surely depend upon the pleadings to be preferred by her in future and in due course. 13. That apart, as rightly pointed out by Sri.Philip T.Varghese, OP No.660/2024 - from which the impugned order has emanated, was filed only on 25.04.2024 or thereabout; while Ext.R1(b) order was issued by the Court in Singapore, dismissing the application of the petitioner against the maintainability of the proceedings, as early as on 28.02.2024. Further, the petitioner went on to seek leave of the next Court in hierarchy for filing an appeal, which is available from Ext.R1(c), on 22.04.2024, which request, particularly for extension of time, has been dismissed through Ext.R1(d) order dated 19.09.2024. 14. Further, the petitioner went on to seek leave of the next Court in hierarchy for filing an appeal, which is available from Ext.R1(c), on 22.04.2024, which request, particularly for extension of time, has been dismissed through Ext.R1(d) order dated 19.09.2024. 14. It is thus perspicuous that the Court in Singapore has dealt with the petition filed by the respondent to a substantial extent, to the point where it has already issued an interim judgment, namely Ext.R1, on 03.02.2025. As correctly pointed out by Sri.Philip T.Varghese, even in the said order, it is luculently recorded – which fact is not contested by the petitioner before us – that he was present in Court and informed it, that he does not want to participate and then left thereafter. 15. Obviously, therefore, even though we are fully in favour of the submissions of Sri.Jacob Sebastian that, in apposite circumstances, Courts can issue anti-suit injunctions against one of the parties, we are of the firm view that this case does not present any such circumstance. 16. To paraphrase, the singular argument of Sri.Jacob Sebastian before us, that the submissions and averments made by the respondent in the Tr.P.(C) No.418/2023 would be sufficient to hold that she has submitted herself to the jurisdiction of the learned Family Court in Kerala, cannot appeal to us for the reasons that we have already stated above. 17. That being so, the other circumstances presented, warrant a decision in favour of the wife for the singular reason that, admittedly, it was she who filed a petition before the Court of Singapore first, on 06.10.2022 - the summons in which, is admitted to have been received by the petitioner on 21.11.2022. The Original Petition, seeking anti-suit injunction, was filed much later, on 25.04.2024, after he had already preferred Ext.R1(c) application seeking leave to appeal against Ext.R1(b) order of the Court in Singapore, on 22.04.2024. Clearly, the petitioner was pursuing his available remedies before the Court in Singapore; and simultaneously attempted to get an anti-suit injunction against the respondent in the Courts in Kerala. 18. In summation, we cannot find any error to have been committed by the learned Family Court, in denying an interim injunction as prayed for by the petitioner. Clearly, the petitioner was pursuing his available remedies before the Court in Singapore; and simultaneously attempted to get an anti-suit injunction against the respondent in the Courts in Kerala. 18. In summation, we cannot find any error to have been committed by the learned Family Court, in denying an interim injunction as prayed for by the petitioner. So said, we are fully aware that the Original Petition is still pending before it; and therefore, make it clear that our observations in this judgment are only intended for the purpose of guiding our opinion in the issues involved herein and nothing else; and that the learned Family Court will be at full liberty to decide the matter as per law, after affording necessary opportunities to both sides. 19. After we dictated this part of the judgment, Sri.Jacob Sebastian intervened to say that his client also has an additional argument that the divorce petition filed by the wife in Singapore is not maintainable because the ground projected by her, namely “irretrievable breakdown of marriage” is not one available in Indian law. 20. Sri.Philip T.Varghese, in response, however, submitted that even under the laws in Singapore, irretrievable breakdown of marriage takes into question of adultery, unreasonable behaviour and desertion; and that the ground raised by the petitioner before the Court in Kerala is adultery against his client. 21. We are afraid that the above argument of the petitioner would not change our opinion recorded above because, such contentions ought to be impelled by him before the Court in Singapore; especially in the backdrop of the contra- argument of the respondent. This Original Petition is thus dismissed.