1 mca21-11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION rpa MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.21 OF 2011 Usha Pravin Pawar .. Applicant V/s. Pravin Shankar Pawar .. Respondent ..... Ms. Sanghmitra Nanaware for the applicant. Mr. Makrand P. Panchakshari h/f. Mr. Sagar Kasar for the respondent. ..... CORAM : A. S. OKA, J. DATE : MAY 4, 2011. P.C.:- Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. Applicant is the wife of the respondent. The respondent has filed a petition for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai. The applicant has filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the said Act in the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division at Dhule. A copy of the said petition annexed to the application shows that the same was filed on 31st March, 2010. Copy of the petition filed by the respondent in the Family Court annexed to this application shows that the same is filed in April 2010. 2. The contention in the application is that the applicant is a resident of Dhule and the respondent is the resident of Singapore. The 2 mca21-11 contention raised in the application is that it is very inconvenient for the applicant to undertake overnight journey for attending the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai. It is stated that the distance between Mumbai and Dhule is 400 kilometers. Therefore, a prayer is made for transfer of the petition filed by the respondent in the Family Court at Mumbai to the Civil Court at Dhule. 3. The opposition of the respondent as reflected from the affidavit in reply is that the applicant is not a resident of Dhule and in fact she is residing at Dombivali in District Thane in the house of her brother-in- law Shri Deepak Borse. It is contended that though the applicant is not a resident of Dhule, only with a view to harass the respondent who is residing in Singapore, a petition for restitution of conjugal rights has been filed in the Court at Dhule. It is contended that the Court at Dhule has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the matrimonial dispute 4. I have considered the submissions. The contention of the respondent is that the applicant is not residing at Dhule cannot be accepted for the simple reason that in the cause title of the petition for divorce filed by the respondent in the family Court at Bandra, Mumbai, the address of the applicant shown is of Dhule. Thus, in April 2010, while filing the petition in Family Court at Mumbai, the respondent has 3 mca21-11 himself stated that the applicant is a resident of Dhule. Hence, the contention raised in the reply cannot be accepted. 5. In any event, the respondent will have to attend the Court at Dhule for contesting the petition filed by the applicant. As the applicant is a resident of Dhule, the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division at Dhule will have jurisdiction to entertain the petition filed by the respondent. 6. Hence, a case is made out for passing an order of transfer. 7. Accordingly, I pass the following order: :: O R D E R :: i. Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). ii. The learned Principal District Judge, Dhule will ensure that the petition filed by the applicant and the petition filed by the respondent are assigned to the same Court to enable the Court to hear the petitions together or one after the another. JUDGE