1 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 91 OF 2009 Mrs.Rupali Akshay Chavan ... Applicant v/s Shri Akshay Dilip Chavan ... Respondent Mr.Kishore Hase for the applicant. Mr.Rajesh More for the respondent. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 20TH NOVEMBER, 2009 P.C.: 1. The miscellaneous civil application has been filed for transferring the matrimonial petition which has been filed by the husband before the Family Court, Pune, to the Civil Judge, Sr.Divn., Panvel. 2. The applicant and the respondent were married on 2 16.12.2006, in Pune. The applicant gave birth to a male child on 10.9.2008. It appears that the applicant had to leave the matrimonial home on 8.5.2009 because of the violence perpetrated by the respondent and the members of his family in order to obtain a dowry. A criminal complaint was lodged by the applicant on 8.5.2009 against the respondent and her in-laws under Section 498-A, 323 of the Indian Penal Code. The respondent and the members of his family were arrested on 11.5.2009. Thereafter on 22.6.2009, the respondent filed an application for restitution of conjugal rights before the Family Court. The applicant had also filed a petition under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 which is pending before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panvel, Dist. Raigad. 3. The applicant has sought a transfer of the proceedings to Panvel from Pune in view of the fact that she has to take her infant son, who is just 10 months’ old. She is also suffering from post-natal illnesses and anaemia. She therefore finds it difficult to travel to Pune. 4. On behalf of the respondent it is submitted that a family councillor has been appointed in the petition filed for restitution of conjugal rights and the respondent is hopeful that some settlement would be reached if the applicant appears before the Family Marriage Councillor. It is, 3 therefore, submitted that there is no need to transfer this petition from Pune to Panvel especially when there is no marriage councillor to assist that Court. It is also submitted that the distance between Panvel and Pune is hardly two hours’ and no hardship would be caused to the applicant to travel to Pune. 5. The learned advocate for the applicant had stated that on the last occasion when the applicant was required to travel and appear before the Marriage Councillor, she was required to be administered a drip, in view of her weakness from the travelling. He submits that the doctor treating the applicant has advised that she should not travel and should instead rest. 6. Considering the facts and circumstance in this case, in my opinion, it will be appropriate to transfer the proceedings from Pune to Panvel. If indeed a Marriage Councillor/ Mediator is required, it is always open to the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panvel to ensure that the matter is sent for mediation between the parties in order to bring about a settlement. 7. Accordingly, the miscellaneous civil application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (i). ..... 4 5