gst 1 mca133.10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 133 OF 2010 Sandeep S. Ghadigaonkar... .... .... ...Applicant. V/s Snehal S. Ghadigaonkar.. .... .... ..Respondent. Mr.R.T.Lalwani, Adv. For the applicant. Mr.V.N.Kantawala i/by M/s.Vivek Kantawala & Co. CORAM: B.R. GAVAI, J. 19th Jan.., 2011 PC: By way of present petition the petitioner is seeking transfer of the proceedings initiated by the respondent-wife at Pune for custody of child of the petitioner and the respondent. Shri Lalwani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has pressed into service following submissions in support of his case: (i) that the petitioner filed by the petitioner at Mumbai is still pending wherein the respondent-wife has put in her appearance and also filed counter claim; (ii) that the MCA filed by the respondent-wife being MCA No.92/09 for transfer of the said proceedings from Pune to Mumbai has been rejected; (iii) that the proceedings filed by the respondent-wife are for bringing custody of the child and that the petitioner is not at the moment interested in the permanent custody; (iv) that if two proceedings are permitted to proceed simultaneously at Mumbai and Pune there is possibility of conflicting orders being passed. 2. No doubt that there are proceedings pending between the parties at Mumbai and Pune. Learned counsel is also equally right in contending that the petition filed by the respondent-wife for transfer of proceedings from Pune to gst 2 mca133.10.sxw Mumbai has been rejected by this Court. 3. However by now it is settle position in law and that there are catena of decision by the Apex Court wherein it has been held that in matrimonial matters convenience of the wife has to be given more weightage while considering the transfer of proceedings. The earlier application of the respondent-wife has been rejected by this Court distinguishing the judgments of the Apex Court by observing that in the cases before the Apex Court the distance between the two cities was 600 kms. or 1000 kms., however distance between Mumbai and Pune is only 150 kms. Therefore the wife is not inconvenienced. 4. Applying the same analogy since the distance between Pune and Mumbai is only 150 kms., no inconvenience would be caused to the present applicant to travel to Pune to attend the proceedings. In any case, if the Court has to consider and choose the convenience between the husband and the wife, in such matters it is the convenience of the wife which has to be given more weightage. 5. In that view of the matter I am not inclined to entertain the present application. Hence the same is rejected.