.. 1 .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 78 OF 2008 Sonali Shriram Parande @ Mrs. Sonali Devendra Badwe .... Applicant V/s. Mr. Devendra Jayant Badwe .... Respondent Mr. Shyam Dewani i/b Mr. Rajiv Sawant for the applicant. Mr. Hemant Kenjalkar, advocate for the respondent. CORAM : R.V. MORE, J. DATED : 4TH MAY 2009. P.C. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. Rule. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith. 3. The Petitioner is the wife of respondent. Their marriage was solemnised in Mumbai on 26th July 2001 as per Hindu Customs and Rites. For one reason or other, the parties could not stay together and they are already separated. The respondent-husband has filed Divorce Petition u/s. 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, on the ground of cruelty bearing P.A. No. 132 of 2008 in the Family Court at Pune and the same is pending. The present Misc. Application is filed by the petitioner-wife for transfer of the said petition P.A. No.132 of 2008 from the Family Court, Pune to the Family Court at Mumbai. SKT/- .. 2 .. 4. Mr. Dewani, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the marriage between the parties was solemnised at Mumbai. His further contention is that Marriage Petition filed by the respondent himself shows that the parties were resided lastely together at Mumbai and therefore the Family Court at Pune has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition. He submitted that the petitioner’s parents are staying at Mumbai and at present for the purpose of service she is staying at Bangalore. On the contrary, the respondent-husband though resident of Pune at present serving in New Jersy, U.S.A. and therefore, if the Marriage Petition is transferred to Mumbai, it may not cause inconvenience to the respondent-husband. He further submitted that the petitioner-wife received telephonic threats from Pune and therefore, in the interest of justice the proceedings of the Marriage Petition deserves to be transferred at Mumbai. 5. Mr. Kenjalkar, learned counsel for the respondent-husband, per contra, submitted that the respondent has correctly filed Marriage Petition at Pune as the parties were lastly resided at Pune. He submitted that petitioner- wife is serving at Bangalore therefore it will not cause any inconvenience to her if the petition is heard at Pune. He also submitted that the respondent- husband’s mother is Power of Attorney holder of the respondent and it would be difficult for her to attend the proceeding at Mumbai. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and having gone through the contents of the petition alongwith annexures thereto, I find merits in the application. Admittedly, respondent is serving at New Jersy, U.S.A. SKT/- .. 3 .. There is no dispute that the parents of the petitioner are residing at Mumbai and only for service purpose, the petitioner is staying at Bagalore. In order to prove his case, the respondent-husband required to appear personally in the Court. In the facts and circumstances, if the proceedings are transferred to Mumbai, in my opinion, no prejuedice will be caused to the respondent-husband and simultaneously it will be convinient to the petitioner-wife in as much as her parents are staying at Mumbai and she can attend the proceedings by taking help of her parents. 7. The petitioner-wife also commpained that she received telephonic threats from Pune. The respondent-husband though stoutly denied these allegations, it appears that there is apprehension of physical hurt to the petitioner-wife from the respondent-husband if she is to attend the proceedings at Pune. There is nobody in the family of the petitioner-wife except her old parents who are residing at Mumbai and therefore, it would be convenient to her to attend the proceedings at Mumbai. 8. Taking overall circumstances into consideration, in my opinion interest of justice would be subserved if the marriage petition is transferred from Family Court, Pune to Family Court, Mumbai. Hence, I pass following order : “Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 78 of 2008 is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). Rule made absolute with no order as to cost. (R.V. MORE, J.) SKT/-