IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.22 OF 2010. Sharadhha Ganesh Joshi, age 28 years, occu. Service, r/o Flat No.5, Sai Sidhi Apartment, Building No.2, Near Saraswat Bank, CIDCO, Nasik. .. PETITIONER. VERSUS Ganesh Arun Joshi, age 32 years, occu. Service, r/o Flat No.8, Kasliwal Puram, Near Mevad Hotel, Nageshwarwadi, Aurangabad. .. RESPONDENT. ... Shri Satyajit Bora, Advocate for Petitioner. Shri S.R. Deshpande, Advocate for Respondent ... CORAM : S.S. SHINDE,J. 13th October, 2010. PER COURT: 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and taken up for hearing by consent of the parties. 3. By way of this application, the petitioner prays for transfer of Hindu Marriage Petition No. 25/2010 Ganesh Joshi vs. Shradha Joshi pending before the Family Court Court at Aurangabad to the District / Family Court at Nasik. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent took place on 28th November, 2004. The couple shifted to Nasik in 2007. The respondent has filed H.M.P. NO. 25/2010 on 29th January, 2010 for restitution of conjugal rights. The petitioner has filed Special Civil Suit No.298/2010 for maintenance u/s 18 and 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 at Nasik. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no brother to the petitioner, her sister is already married. Parents are suffering from ailment. She is working in S.B.I. Insurance at Nasik. She has child of three years. The distance between Aurangabad and Nasik is roughly 200 to 250 Kms., and it is not possible for the petitioner alone to travel from Nasik to Aurangabad for attending the matter. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the following reported judgments: a) Sumita Singh vs. Kumar Sanjay (2001 DGLS(Soft) 346); b) Anisha Sanjay Hinduja vs. Sanjay S. Hinduja (2003(Supp) Bom.BCR 802); c) Yogini Umesh Chivhane vs. Umesh Uttamrao Chivhane (2004(5) Bom.C.R. 901); d) Sangmitra Ramakant Royalwar vs. Ramakant Gangaram Royalwar (2009(1) Bom.C.R. 316; and e) Vidhya Shankar Iyer vs. Shankar Nagraj Iyer (2006(4) Bom.C.R. 335). Relying on the aforesaid reported judgments, the learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the application deserves to be allowed. 4. The learned Counsel for the respondent invited my attention to some admitted facts that the proceedings have been filed by the respondent before the competent court, their marriage took place at Aurangabad, the couple used to reside at Aurangabad and the proceedings before the Family Court are progressing. The learned Counsel for respondent invited my attention to the scheme of the Family Courts Act and submitted that adjudication of the matrimonial dispute by the Family Court is proper since the parties are not required to engage advocate and the proceedings are conducted in camera. He invited my attention to section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and submitted that as per section 19 of the said Act, the proceedings u/s 9 are to be filed in the Court within the local limits of which the marriage was solemnized between the parties and thereupon where the parties resided. He further submitted that the facts of the reported judgments cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner are different and, therefore, the ratio laid down therein is not applicable to the case in hand. 5. I have given due consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties. On considering the various judgments cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner – wife, it is the convenience of wife which is required to be looked at in the proceedings filed by the husband. That apart, on the facts of this case, it is not in dispute that the child is of three years old and also the petitioner is working at Nasik. Taking into consideration the facts of this case, in my opinion, it would be in the interest of justice to transfer the proceedings in HMP NO.25/2010 pending before the Family Court, Aurangabad to the Family Court, at Nasik. 6. In the light of above, Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (B). M.C.A. Is allowed to the above extent. The Family Court, Aurangabad to take steps to transfer the proceedings in HMP NO. 25/2010 pending before the Family Court, Aurangabad to the Family Court, at Nasik, within 15 days from today. The Family Court, Nasik shall decide the said proceedings expeditiously, preferably within six months from receipt thereof. Needless to mention that the parties are at liberty to apply the Family Court, Nasik for transfer all other proceedings filed by the husband either in Family Court or Civil Court, to Family Court, Nasik. [ S.S. SHINDE ] JUDGE. ... PLK/