: 1 : fvss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION NO.89 OF 2009 Vidya Chandrakant Narayankar ... Applicant V/s. Chandrakant Ishwar Narayankar ... Respondent Mr.Anjali Waghmare for Applicant Mr.Devendra Doshi for Respondent CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: JANUARY 8, 2010 P.C.: 1. The Miscellaneous Civil Application has been filed for transferring the divorce proceedings which are pending in Family Court at Kalyan to the Family Court at Bandra. According to the applicant wife, she was married to Respondent No.1 on 23.2.2002. They have one child who is about 6 years old and is in the custody of the applicant. The applicant filed an application in the Family Court, Mumbai in 2005 seeking maintainance for herself and her minor son. That application was allowed in 2008. Thereafter, a divorce petition was filed on 15.1.2009 by the respondent which is before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kalyan. The applicant has thereafter filed a recovery application seeking the arrears of the maintainance payable from 22.6.2008 to 21.6.2009 She has also filed on the same day an application for enhancement of maintainance. The present Miscellaneous Civil Application has been filed three days : 2 : thereafter. 2. It is contended on behalf of the applicant by relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajani Kishor Pardeshi vs. Kishor Babulal Pardeshi, (2005) 12 SCC 237 that the wife’s convenience must be taken into consideration by the Court while deciding whether to transfer matters from one Court to another Court. It is submitted that the applicant would be required to travel from Ghatkopar where she is residing all the way to Kalyan with her 6 year old son. According to the applicant, travelling this distance would cause inconvenience not only to her but also to the child. 3. The learned advocate for the respondent submits that the present Application has been filed malafide. He points out that the applications for recovery of arrears and for enhancement of maintainance have been filed only 3 days prior to the present application, only with a view to ensure that the present application is allowed. He points out that the divorce proceedings have been filed in 2009 and the applicant has been attending the Court there. In fact he points out that the applicant has appeared before the Court at Kalyan and had the “no w.s.” order recalled. She is now required to file her written statement. He further points out that since the applicant in any event has to travel from Ghatkopar to Bandra, there is no reason why she cannot travel to Kalyan. He further points out that the respondent is staying in Badlapur and is employed in Thane and it would cause great inconvenience to him to travel to Bandra for attending these matters. 4. Having considered the arguments of the learned advocate for the parties, in : 3 : my opinion, it would be appropriate to transfer the proceedings from the Kalyan Court to the Court at Bandra. The Supreme Court in the case of Rajani Kishor Pardeshi vs. Kishor Babulal Pardeshi, (2005) 12 SCC237 has held that the convenience of the wife is to be preferred over the convenience of the husband. Besides in the present case the applicant would have to travel for a long distance with the child. In these circumstances, it would be appropriate to grant the Miscellaneous Civil Application. 5. Accordingly, the Miscellaneous Civil Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a).