1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Misc. Civil Application (Transfer) No.1176 of 2010 (Smt. Vaishali w/o Kamlesh Rarokar v. Kamlesh s/o Moreshwar Rarokar) Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order Shri Satish K. Ankar, Advocate, holding for Shri S.P. Bhandarkar, Advocate for Applicant. Shri R.M. Patwardhan, Advocate for Respondent. Coram : R.K. Deshpande, J. Dated : 22 nd February, 2011 1. By this Misc. Civil Application, the applicant-wife is seeking transfer of Petition No.A-781 of 2010 (Kamlesh Rarokar v. Vaishali Rarokar) pending in the Family Court at Nagpur to the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Gondia. 2. Notice of final disposal of the matter was issued on 13-12-2010. In response to this, Shri R.M. Patwardhan, the learned counsel, appears for the respondent-husband. The 2 respondent-husband has filed his reply opposing the claim made in the application. 3. The ground for seeking transfer, as stated in the application, is that the applicant-wife is residing at Gondia in her parents’ house and she is having a female child, aged about four years, living with her. The distance between Gondia and Nagpur is approximately of 170 kms. and it is, therefore, not possible for her to attend the proceedings in the Family Court at Nagpur on every occasion. It is urged by the learned counsel for the applicant-wife that the convenience of the wife has to be looked into. He has relied upon the decision rendered by this Court in Misc. Civil Application No.16 of 2009 (Anita Balkrishna Barge v. Balkrishna Sopan Barge) decided on 6-10-2010 at Aurangabad. 4. The application is being opposed by the respondent-husband. It is the stand taken by the respondent-husband that the parties were lastly residing together at Nagpur and without any reasonable excuse, the applicant-wife left the matrimonial home and hence the petition 3 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has been filed for a decree of restitution of conjugal rights, on 29-9-2010, bearing Petition No.A-781 of 2010. In the reply filed by the respondent-husband, a statement is made that the applicant-wife has got several relatives residing at Nagpur and she can very well be escorted to the Court at Nagpur on the dates of hearing, from Gondia and the respondent-husband has shown his readiness and willingness to pay the conveyance charges to the applicant-wife. The learned counsel for the respondent-husband states that the respondent-husband is also ready and willing to bear the charges of escort to the applicant for attending the proceedings in the Family Court at Nagpur on the dates of hearing. 5. Simply because the distance between the two places is of 170 kms., that cannot be a ground for transfer of the matter from one place to another. The parties were lastly residing together at Nagpur. The respondent-husband has shown his readiness and willingness to bear the reasonable charges of conveyance, which shall be borne by the applicant-wife for herself and for one escort, to attend the proceedings in the Family Court at Nagpur. 4 6. No doubt, the convenience of the wife is required to be looked into, however that is not the sole ground, but the other circumstances can also be looked into and the Court having jurisdiction to deal with the matter cannot easily be divested of its jurisdiction without the claim of such transfer is substantiated. Whether the convenience of the wife has to be looked into, or whether the proceedings are required to be transferred, is a question to be decided on the basis of the facts and circumstances of each case. 7. In view of the fact that there is no case made out for transfer of the proceedings, the Misc. Civil Application is dismissed. However, it is clarified that the respondent-husband shall bear the reasonable expenses of conveyance of the applicant and that of one escort for attending the proceedings in the Family Court at Nagpur. The Family Court, Nagpur shall determine such amount payable to the applicant upon production of evidence to that effect and shall pass appropriate order directing the respondent to immediately pay the same to the applicant on each date of her attendance. 5 8. At this stage, the learned counsel for the applicant has complained that the maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month granted in Special Civil Suit No.65 of 2010, has not been paid to the applicant. The applicant is at liberty to get the said order executed in accordance with law. Judge pdl