3.Mrs.P.Kavitha Balakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, opposing the above prayer, forcibly argued that it was only the petitioner all the time creating mental cruelty to the respondent and his family members. When the petitioner came to the this Court seeking transfer, she has not mentioned about the abortion caused by her own mother without the knowledge of the respondent. On earlier occasion when the petitioner was conceived, without the knowledge of the respondent husband, the petitioner's mother, who is unnecessarily interfering with the matrimonial life of the petitioner and the respondent, wrongly convinced the petitioner and aborted the first child through a known Doctor. This aspect has not been mentioned anywhere. However, the husband, against whom the bald allegation made that he caused fracture and frequent physical assault, condoning the petitioner's unilateral decision to abort the child, accepted her to come back to matrimonial home and to live together, which shows that the respondent is not a man of violent to cause physical cruelty by beating her black and blue as alleged by the petitioner. Moreover, when the petitioner alleged that there were injuries, the accident register does not disclose any injury. Therefore, the petitioner has come to this Court on the ground that whenever a woman comes to this Court seeking transfer, the Court always tends to accept her request and her efforts taken, but this tendency should be changed when cruelty or torture is at the hands of the cruel wife. When the husband has been frequently harassed by the petitioner and her family members to come separately from his parents to live with the petitioner's family at Neyveli, it is absolutely impossible for the respondent husband, who is presently working in Salem to come and live with the petitioner and her parents in Neyveli abandoning his parents at Villupuram.
