SRJ 1 ma-68-09.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.68 of 2009 WITH C.A.O. NO.6 OF 2010 Mrs. Rashmi @ Sonali R. Deokhedka .. Applicant V/s. Mr. Rajiv S. Deokhedkar .. Respondent. Shri Filji Frederick i/b.F.F.Associates,for the Applicant. Shri Ravi Kadam i/b. V.A. Sugdare, for the Respondent. CORAM :J.HS.BHATIA,J. DATE :30th APRIL,2010 P.C.:- 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. Respondent is husband of Applicant and he has filed Marriage Petition No.69 of 2008 for divorce before the Family Court at Aurangabad. The Applicant was previously working in the office of Police Commissioner at Nagpur. At that time, she had filed Marriage Petition No.A-75 of 2008 in the Family Court at Nagpur, for divorce. She has also filed Maintenance Application being Petition No.E-300 of 2007 before the Family Court at Nagpur. She has also filed Marriage Petition No.ER-23 of 2008 for execution of maintenance order before the Family Court at Nagpur. Later on, she shifted to Pune, because of change in job and she filed this application for SRJ 2 ma-68-09.sxw transfer of all three cases from Nagpur and one Petition from Family Court, Aurangabad to Pune. The learned counsel appearing for the Applicant makes statement that now she is posted at Mumbai and it is not possible for her to travel from Mumbai to Aurangabad or Nagpur and, therefore, all these matters should be transferred to Mumbai. He also pointed out that there is one Criminal Case filed by the husband at Auranabad. However, there is no mention of that matter in the present application. Mumbai and Aurangabad are well connected by the Train and hardly it is the journey of 7 to 8 hours. 3. The Applicant is serving as Legal Manager for Bank of India. Taking into consideration the nature of job she has been doing, firstly in the Police Department and then as Legal Manager, it is clear that she is not a simple housewife who cannot interact without help. The learned counsel appearing for the Applicant also contended that she has a five years old child to look after. However, in view of the fact that everyday from Morning to Evening, she is attending her office, other members of the family take care of the child. Further there is one more matter before the Family Court at Auranabad for custody of a child and that application is filed by her. However, she has not made any request for transfer of that matter nor she made any application for transfer of Criminal Case from Aurangabad to Pune or Mumbai. 4. It appears that the Applicant is changing her station frequently in view of change of job and every time SRJ 3 ma-68-09.sxw there is a change of job, she wants transfer of cases form one jurisdiction to another jurisdiction, that cannot be justified. Taking into consideration the circumstances, it will not be possible to transfer the matters from Aurangabad or Nagpur to Mumbai. However, because she is not living at Nagpur and her husband is staying at Aurangabad and some other matters are at Aurangabad, the matters pending before the Family Court at Nagpur may be transferred to Aurangabad. So that both the parties can conveniently look after their matters. 5. The learned counsel pointed out that Marriage Petition No.A-75 of 2008 filed by her at Nagpur has been dismissed in default and she has made an application for restoration of the same. 6. In view of the above, the Marriage Petition No.E-300 of 2007 and ER-23 of 2008 pending before the Family Court at Nagpur and in case, the Marriage Petition No.A-75 of 2008 is restored to file, the said Petition also shall stands transferred to the Family Court at Aurangabad. After the said transfer, the learned Judge of the Family Court at Aurangabad shall fix all the matters between the parties as far as possible on the same day to avoid any inconvenience to the parties. Application stands disposed of accordingly. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)