1 Misc. Civil Application No.35/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.35 OF 2010 Yogita @ Swati Anil Somwanshi, Age 24 years, Occ. Household, R/o C/o Arun Rupchand Ahire, At Santosh Nagar, Plot No.6, Shubham Nagar, Walwadi Shivar, Deopur, Dhule, Taluka and District Dhule ... APPLICANT VERSUS Anil Rameshwar Somwanshi, Age 33 years, Occ. Service, R/o Mahatma Fule Vidyalaya, Senior College, Near S.T. Staff, At Post Varud, Taluka Varud, District Amravati ... RESPONDENT ..... Shri N.L. Chaudhari, Advocate for applicant Shri L.V. Sangit, Advocate for respondent ..... CORAM : S.S. SHINDE, J. DATED : 20th June, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties, heard finally. 2 Misc. Civil Application No.35/2010 2. It is not necessary to refer to the facts of the case extensively. Suffice it to say that the marriage between the applicant and respondent was solemnized on 28.6.2010. However, due to some quarrel/ dispute between the parties, various proceedings came to be filed on behalf of applicant and also by the respondent. It is the case of the applicant that, the applicant has filed H.M.P. No.303/2010 before Civil Judge, Senior Division, Dhule and also application filed under the provisions of Protection of Women under Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Said proceedings are pending in Dhule Court. The husband (respondent herein) has filed H.M.P. No.39/2010 before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Akola under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 3. It is the contention of the applicant that, where the wife is petitioner in the proceedings pending before the Court below, the proceedings filed by the husband should generally be transferred considering the convenience of the wife. The other grounds are also taken in the application. The counsel appearing for the applicant has placed reliance on the reported judgment of this Court in the case of Savita w/o Vijay Mahajan Vs. Vijay s/o Bajirao Mahajan (2008 B.C.I. 210), and submits that, in case of the proceedings filed by the husband, convenience of the wife should be looked into. Therefore, 3 Misc. Civil Application No.35/2010 counsel for the applicant submits that, the proceedings i.e. H.M.P. No.39/2010 filed by the respondent before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Akola under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act may be transferred to Civil Judge, Senior Division, Dhule where H.M.P. filed by the applicant/ wife is pending. 4. On the other hand, counsel appearing for the respondent submits that, H.M.P. No.39/10 filed by the respondent/ husband was first in time and subsequently, H.M.P. No.303/2010 is filed by the applicant wife before the Civil Judge, Senior Division at Dhule, therefore, according to the counsel for the respondent, since H.M.P. No.39/2010 filed by him was earlier in time, the subsequent H.M.P. No.303/2010 filed by the wife may be transferred to Akola. He is ready to bear expenses towards travelling. Therefore, learned counsel for the respondent submits that this application may be rejected. 5. I have given due consideration to the submissions advanced by the counsel appearing for the parties. In my opinion, since there are three proceedings filed by the applicant/ wife at Dhule, one H.M.P. No.303/2010, criminal complaint under Section 498 of the Indian Penal Code and application under Protection of Women under Domestic Violence Act, it would be appropriate to transfer the proceedings filed by the respondent/ husband from Akola to Dhule. That apart, the 4 Misc. Civil Application No.35/2010 point raised in this application is covered by the judgment of this Court, relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in (i) Ravinder Vs. Hitinder Singh, (AIR 2000 SC 3403 (2), (ii) Rena Gautam Vs. Vinod Gautam (AIR 2000 SC 3405 (1), (iii) Madhu Saxena Vs. Pankaj Saxena (2005) 13 SCC 158, (iv) Seema Shrinidhi Vs. Praveen Kumar Tiwari (1997) 8 SCC 712 and (v) Leena Mukherjee Vs. Rabi Shankar Mukherjee, (2002) 10 SCC 480). Therefore, the convenience of the wife in such proceedings is required to be looked into. Therefore, the H.M.P. No.39/2010 filed by the respondent before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Akola be transferred to the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Dhule by the concerned Court within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order of this Court. Upon receiving such proceedings from the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Akola, the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Dhule shall try and decide both the H.M.Ps. and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible, but not later than one year form the actual receiving the proceedings of H.M.P. No.39/2010. The application is allowed to above extent and stands disposed of. Rule made absolute in above terms. ( S.S. SHINDE, J. )