1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPEALLATE JURISDICTION MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.92 OF 2009 Ms.Snehal Sandeep Ghadigaonkar. ..Applicant. Vs. Mr. Sandeep Shantaram Ghadigaonkar. ..Respondent. Advocate Abhijit Sarwate with Ms. Kokila Kalra for the Applicant. Mr.R.T.Lalwani for the Respondent. CORAM : R.S. MOHITE, J. DATE : 10th Sept.2009. PC: 1 Heard both sides at length. 2 This is an application filed by the applicant wife for transfer of petition bearing Petition A No.159/2006 pending before the Family Court at Bandra to the Family Court at Pune. The facts indicate that the petition was filed by the husband for divorce and for access to the minor son. In the said petition, a reply was filed seeking maintenance. It is admitted position that 2 the said petition has been partly decreed, by consent, in so far as prayer for divorce is concerned. The matter is pending in the Family Court at Bandra on the question of grant of access to a 6.1/2 years old son who is residing with the mother at Pune and for deciding the issues pertaining to access and grant of maintenance. The transfer is sought on the ground that the travel to Mumbai from Pune is not convenient for the petitioner wife. It is contended that the convenience of the wife is of paramount importance. 3. It is seen that, this is a case where the petition has been partly decreed and on the two aspects that remained pending. The evidence of the husband has commenced in the sense that the affidavit in lieu of examination in chief has been filed. It is true that the convenience of the wife is required to be given importance. This is however, a case where the wife herself had filed her reply in the nature of a counter claim in the 3 very same petition in the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai, though she could have filed an independent petition in Family Court at Pune if she so desired. The petition in question has been pending since 2006 and the application for transfer is made after the period of three years in the year 2009, after evidence has commenced. It is also not in dispute that the child in question is not an infant. It is also an admitted position that the parents of the wife reside in Pune city. In my view, it is not absolutely necessary for the the petitioner to come to Mumbai on every date and the matter being of civil matter can be proceeded with by the advocate without presence of the applicant and the presence of the petitioner is not absolutely necessary on all dates. These days journey from Pune to Mumbai is a matter of about three hours and cannot be said to be so inconvenient as to warrant an order of transfer of the petition. It may be mentioned here that, admittedly, the petitioner wife is a highly educated and internationally travelled person 4 holding a degree in Master of Business Administration. It is an admitted position that she was earlier working in United Kingdom and when working was earing salary of about 17000 pounds per annum. In matters of this nature, it is not only convenience of the parties that has to be considered but also the convenience of the witnesses. Advocate for the respondent states that his witnesses are from Mumbai and that since the parties never resided at Pune, there will be no witnesses from Pune. Be that as it may, there are only limited issues remaining and since the evidence has already commenced would not be fit to exercise jurisdiction under Section-24 of the Code of Civil Procedure and transfer the main petition at this late stage. Before parting with matter, I would like to make reference of the judgments which were cited on behalf of the petitioner wife. The first judgment cited is the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sumita Singh Vs. 5 Kumar Sanjay reported in 2002 AIR (SC)-0-396, where a transfer petition preferred by the wife seeking transfer of matrimonial proceeding filed by her husband in Village Ara, Bhojpur to Delhi was sought. In that, she had contended that she was living and working in Delhi and would not be able to travel a distance of about 1100 Kilometers from Delhi to defend the matrimonial proceeding. That case turns on different facts. Mumbai and Pune are very well connected and the distance is nowhere near 1100 kilometers. Besides, it is the case of the petitioner wife that she is now not working. The second case referred to was a case decided by the Single Judge of this Court in Anisha Sanjay Hinduja Vs. Sanjay Shrichand Hinduja reported in 2003 MHL J-3/139. In that case, a tranfer petition of the wife was allowed. But the facts indicate that on account of the petitioner s pregnancy she was not able to attend the proceeding in the Family Court at Pune and after 6 delivery of child it became impossible for her to attend the said proceeding. However, the facts situated in this case are totally different. The third case referred to by the advocate for the petitioner was a case of Pratibha Khemka Vs. Sanjay Kumar Khemka reported in 2005 AIR (SCW)0-3200. There also facts indicate that the wife filed a transfer petition on the ground that she has to travel 600 Kilometers. She has contended that there was no direct transportation between the two places and her small son studying in the 1st standard and had recently undergone an operation. That, her aged parents were not in a position to travel with her and that her mother had suffered heart attack. The facts situated in that case were different from the present case. 4 It may be stated here that, normally speaking, courts keep upper most in their mind the convenience of the wife but the cases which are 7 cited arise out of different and peculiar set of facts. The cases so cited do not lay down any law in this regard. The law relating to jurisdiction in matrimonial matters permits parties to file cases at various venues and the fact that the convenience of wife is required to be seriously considered cannot be tantamount to holding that the court where the wife resides would be the preferred the court of jurisdiction in every case. Each case has to be decided in its own peculiar circumstances. In this view of the matter, I am not inclined to entertain the application and the same is rejected. (R.S. MOHITE, J.)