: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION NO.181 OF 2009 Usha Ashok Chavan .. Applicant V/s. Ashok Jalinder Chavan .. Respondent Mr. Prashant P. Kulkarni for the Applicant. Smt. M.M. Deshmukh for the Respondent. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED : 22 ND JANUARY, 2010. P.C.: 1. The Miscellaneous Civil Application has been filed by the wife of the respondent for a transfer of the proceedings which are pending before the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Karad to the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thane/Navi Mumbai. 2. The applicant and the respondent were married on 7th June, 2002. They have a son who is six years of age today. The applicant contends that she was thrown out of a house in 2004. In 2009, the respondent preferred an application for restitution of conjugal rights before the Court of Civil Judge, : 2 : Senior Division at Karad being Hindu Marriage Petition No.33 of 2009. The applicant has sought a transfer of these proceedings. 3. The main grounds on which the applicant has sought a transfer is that she is now residing with her father at Airoli, District Thane. She has stated that it is inconvenient for her to travel with her son all the way to Karad from Airoli, as the distance between the two places is about 350 kms. She has also stated that she does not have any source of income and that it would be difficult for her to attend the Court in Karad. 4. There is no reply filed by the respondent and, therefore, the averments in the Miscellaneous Civil Application must be accepted. However, the learned Advocate for the respondent submits that the respondent has no financial means to travel all the way to Thane in case the Miscellaneous Civil Application is allowed and, therefore, it would be difficult for him to attend the matter. It is submitted that great inconvenience would be caused : 3 : to the respondent to travel to Thane to attend the matter. 5. In my opinion, since the averments in the Miscellaneous Civil Application are not denied on an affidavit by the respondent, the Miscellaneous Civil Application must be allowed. It is now well settled specially in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajani Kishor Pardeshi v/s. Kishor Babulal Pardeshi, reported in (2005) 12 SCC 237, that the convenience of the wife is to be preferred over the inconvenience, if any, to the husband. In the present case, the applicant would have to travel 350 kms. alongwith her six year old son to attend the Court. In my opinion, this would cause great hardship not only to the applicant, but also to her son. 6. In these circumstances, the Miscellaneous Civil Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). .......