1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION No. 484/2009 [Sau. Sjita Prasad Udgirkar ..vs.. Prasad Subhashrao Udgirkar ] ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or Directions Court's or Judge's Orders. And Registrar's Orders. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : S.R. DONGAONKAR J. DATED : JULY 20, 2009. Heard Shri Athalye, advocate for the applicant and Shri Amit Balpande, advocate for respondent. This is an application for transfer of H.M.P.No.77/2007 for divorce filed by the respondent against the petitioner-wife in the court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Parbhani. Said proceeding is sought to be transferred to the file of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Wardha under section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Main reasons for which transfer of proceeding is sought are that the petition was being contested by the petitioner at Parbhani, when her father was alive. It is pointed in paragraph 7 of the application that the petitioner is residing at Wardha, since December 2005. She is taking care of her daughter since her birth. She is residing with her mother and younger brother Pravin. The father of the petitioner was serving in District Central Cooperative Bank, Wardha as an Officer. he however, expired on 23.8.208 and after his retirement as there were no retiral 2 benefits available for its employees, his legal heirs including petitioner are not getting any pension. The details as regards the service of Amol at Pune are given, so also about the other brother being a student is also mentioned. Learned counsel for the respondent has strongly opposed this application, particularly on the basis of the judgments of the Apex Court reported in(2006)9 SCC 197 Anindita Das ..vs.. Srijit Das and (2005)11 SCC 535 Preeti Sharma ..vs.. Manjit Sharma . According to the learned counsel for the respondent as the petitioner had herself sought a decree of dissolution of marriage in the written statement in the proceedings filed by the petitioner, the transfer of that proceeding would not be warranted; as the same could be concluded within a day or two. He also contends that respondent / husband is ready to bear expenses of to and fro travelling of the petitioner. . Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment of this court reported in 2009(1) Mh.L.J. 303 Sangmitra w/o Ramakant Royalwar ..vs.. Ramakant s/o Gangaram Royalwar and the judgment of the Apex Court reported in AIR 2002 Supreme Court 396 Sumitra Singh ..vs.. Kumar Sanjay and another. It is necessary to bear in mind some of the circumstances of this petition. Petitioner was contesting the H.M.P. filed by the respondent when her father was alive. Circumstances are materially changed and 3 adversely after his death. Merely furnishing of expenses of to and fro travelling of the petitioner in such circumstances would not provide any solace to the petitioner nor it would be sufficient and make her contest the petition at Parbhani which is far away from Wardha from where convenient transport facility is not available. If the respondent can bear expenses of the petitioner for her contest of the petition at Parbhani, there is no difficulty for him to bear his own expenses for coming to Wardha to contest petition. Further it would be seen that; as contended by the respondent himself, the petition would not take much time for the disposal , may be at Parbhani or at Wardha. There is nothing on record to suggest that any inconvenience is going to be caused to the respondent if his petition is heard at Wardha. If he comes at Wardha he can come alone, whereas if petitioner is required to go to Parbhani, she would be required to go with her child and one companion. Further the distance is such that she may require 2-3 days to attend one date. Turning to the authorities relied by the learned counsel for the respondents, , the ratio of Anindita Das’s case is based on the merits of that case as in that case there was “no ground” for transfer made out. Here is the case where the father of the petitioner has died during the pendency of the proceedings and recently in 2008. He had no pensionable service. The very support of the petitioner to contest the matter has been lost. This not a case where it can be said that leniency 4 shown; if any; to the petitioner has been misused by her. Even if other women had misused the facility / leniency, deserving litigants can not be penalized for their faults. Turning to the other judgment referred by learned counsel for respondent i.e. Preeti Sharma’s case, suffice it to say that distance between Delhi and Muzaffar Nagar on one hand and Wardha and Parbhani on the other would clearly make that case distinguishable. Considering the public transport facilities available it was a case where it was found that merely because the petitioner is a lady does not mean that she cannot travel to Muzaffar Nagar which is well connected to Delhi. The respondent in that case was directed to bear expenses of herself and companion for travelling and stay on each occasion/ Date. I have already pointed out, non-transfer of respondent's H.M.P.,would cause injustice to the petitioner. Taking into consideration the facts of the present case, I find that same are distinguishable as regards the the facts in the cases relied by the respondent. In my opinion, if the matter can be disposed of within 2-3 dates, as stated by learned counsel for respondent, same can be done even at Wardha. No specific inconvenience is likely to be caused to the respondent. As such this petition will have to be allowed even without referring to the authorities relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The application is therefore, allowed. H.M.P. No. 77/2007 5 pending on the file of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Parbhani is hereby transferred to the court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Wardha under section 24 of Civil Procedure Code for disposal in accordance with law as early as possible and in any case within a period of 3 months. Application stands disposed of in above terms. No order as to costs JUDGE SMP