SRJ 1 mca-94-09.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.94 of 2009 Mrs. Neeta M. Rathi .. Applicant V/s. Mr. Manish R. Rathi .. Respondent. Shri D.L.Dad, for Applicant. Shri G.D.Utangale i/b. M/s. Utangale & Co., for the Respondent. CORAM :J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE :30th APRIL,2010 P.C.:- 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The Respondent is the husband of the Applicant and has filed Marriage Petition No.151 of 2009 before the Civil Judge Senior Division, Amravati, for divorce. 2. The Applicant, who is presently in service and residing at Bombay, seeks transfer of the said Marriage Petition to Family Court at Bandra, Bombay. According to her, it is very inconvenient for her to travel to Amravati as she has to look after a daughter who is taking education in the second standard. Further she states that the Family Court at Bombay alone has jurisdiction to try and entertain the divorce petition as parties lastly resided at Mumbai. Husband has denied that they ever live together at Mumbai and he also pointed out that no SRJ 2 mca-94-09.sxw inconvenience will be caused to her,if petition is not transferred. 3. On hearing to the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the Applicant has traveled frequently. They were married at Amaravati and after marriage in the year 2005, they were living in U.S.A., because both got jobs there. In 2005, they left the job in U.S.A. and shifted to India. Husband get the job at Noida, while Applicant get the job at Hydreabad. Then their relations got stained. In view of this, it is clear that the contention of the Applicant that they lastly lived together at Mumbai and the Family Court at Bandra, alone has jurisdiction, does not appears to be correct. 4. The Applicant is Assistant Vice President with Insurance Polaris Software Lab, having multinational clients and it appears that she is traveling frequently with regards to her job. The learned counsel for the Respondent has produced information from the web site showing that she is scheduled to travel abroad in June, 2010 to attend Insurance conference 2010. In view of the high profile nature of her job, it cannot be said that she cannot leave her home to attend the Marriage Petition at the Court at Amravati. Admittedly, she is living with her parents and in her absence, they take care of her daughter. Therefore, that ground also does not appears to be correct. It is contention of the Respondent that for his job, he has to reside at Noida and his old parents resides at Akola, near Amravati and, therefore, whenever SRJ 3 mca-94-09.sxw the matter is fixed before the Family Court, at Amravati, he can get opportunity to meet his parents and that shall be solace to the old parents. Amravati is well connected with Mumbai by the overnight trains and the traveling between the two stations is hardly of about 10 hours. Therefore, it will cause no inconvenience. 5. I do not find any merits in the present application. In the result, application stands rejected. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)