:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION NO.59 OF 2006 MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION NO.59 OF 2006 MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION NO.59 OF 2006 Minal Rajesh Sakhre ..Applicant. v. Rajesh Anant Sakhre ..Respondent. Mr.P.R.Kataneshawarkar, adv. for the Applicant. Mr.Jeevan Puranik, adv. for the Respondent. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. J.H.BHATIA,J. J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE: 7th January, 2008. DATE: 7th January, 2008. DATE: 7th January, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the Parties. 2. The applicant is the wife of the respondent. By this application, she seeks transfer of Hindu Marriage Petition No.4 of 2005 filed by the respondent/husband before the Civil Judge Senior Division, Panvel for divorce to the Family Court, Aurangabad where the applicant is presently living with her parents. According to her, her daughter is taking education and there is nobody, who can accompany her from Aurangabad to Panvel to attend the Court. Distance between the two places is about 500 kms. It causes a lot of inconvenience to her to travel to such a long place without any person with her. According to her financially also she is unable to bear the expenses of travel and contest the petition. :2: 3. The application is opposed by the respondent/husband denying all the allegations. According to him, the petitioner is serving as a postal agent in the local Post Office at Panvel and even after filing of the divorce petition by him and even after she had left Panvel and gone to Aurangabad, she has been frequently coming to Panvel for that business and for collection of her commission. This contention of the respondent/husband has been denied by the applicant in her two affidavits. 4. Admittedly, the applicant has also filed Maintenance Petition before the Family Court, Aurangabad and the respondent/husband is required to attend that Court . In view of this, it will be in the interest of both the parties that both the matters are heard before the same Court. In fact, it will be convenient for the respondent/husband to attend both the matters in the same Court. 5. The learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on several authorities and particularly on Rajani Kishor Pardeshi (2005) 12 SCC 237 Rajani Kishor Pardeshi (2005) 12 SCC 237 Rajani Kishor Pardeshi (2005) 12 SCC 237 wherein Their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that convenience of wife has to be preferred over the convenience of husband in such type of matters. The learned counsel for the respondent/husband relied upon M/s. Poppat Jamal & Sons M/s. Poppat Jamal & Sons M/s. Poppat Jamal & Sons :3: v. N.M.Venkatachalapathy @ Babulal & Another CDJ 2007 v. N.M.Venkatachalapathy @ Babulal & Another CDJ 2007 v. N.M.Venkatachalapathy @ Babulal & Another CDJ 2007 MHC 513 MHC 513 MHC 513 in support of his contention that when the material facts are suppressed and the applicant has not come to the Court with clean hands, the application should be rejected. He points out slight difference in her two affidavits while supporting his contention that she is still working as a postal agent and is frequently visiting Panvel for that purpose. I am not convinced that she has suppressed any material facts. In her first affidavit she stated that in January, 2005 when she was residing with her husband, she had taken agency of the Post Department and was earning about Rs.275-300/- per month as a commission. She further stated that after she was deserted, she came to Aurangabad and as a consequence thereof, the agency and the collection were practically discontinued. In the affidavit dated 13th September, 2007, she specifically stated that "Since I have left Panvel, not on a single occasion, I had a reason to visit Panvel City for collecting the money as a postal agent." She further stated that "I am not getting anything from that Postal Agency business since I was required to discontinue the said agency after shifting to Aurangabad." I do not find any material supporting the contention of the respondent that she has suppressed any material facts. It is difficult to believe that she may be visiting Panvel, which is at a distance of 500 kms. from Aurangabad, just to collect small amount of commission from postal :4: authorities. It may be practically impossible for her to carry on business of postal agent at Panvel after she shifted to Aurangabad. As pointed out earlier admittedly, her Maintenance Petition is also pending before the Family Court, Aurangabad therefore, no inconvenience would be caused to the respondent/husband if the marriage petition filed by him is also transferred from Panvel to Aurangabad. 6. In view of the circumstances stated above Hindu Marriage Petition No.4 of 2005 is hereby transferred from the file of the Civil Judge Senior Division, Panvel to the Family Court, Aurangabad. Family Court, Aurangabad shall as far as possible fix the Hindu Marriage Petition No.4 of 2005 on the same dates on which the Petition No.E-117 of 2006 is fixed. As the marriage petition is pending for the last about 3 years, the Family Court shall expedite the hearing and disposal of the same. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)