1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION NO.20 OF 2009 ( Veena Savkar w/o Amitabh Joshi Vs. Amitabh Krishnachandra Joshi) -------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Court’s or Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s orders Orders Mr. N.S.Ghanekar, Adv., for the petitioner. Mr. B.R.Kedar, Adv., for the respondent (sole). ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE:29/11/2010 1. Heard extensively. The husband is an I.A.S.Officer while the wife - petitioner was a Police Officer, now allegedly resigned and stay with her brother and mother at Aurangabad, with a seven years old female child. 2. The husband has initiated matrimonial proceedings at Family Court, Bandra, in the year 2007 and the wife is prosecuting the same since then. Apart from that, the wife has initiated a private complaint against the husband pending before 8th Metropolitan Court, Esplanade, 2 Mumbai, under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, being Case No. 132/N/2007. 3. The grievance of the wife projected by Mr.Ghanekar is, the wife has to maintain the seven years old daughter, she has mother, aged 65 years, who is diabetic and also suffers high blood pressure. The distance between Mumbai to Aurangabad, being 400 kms, it is aptly inconvenient for the wife to travel from Aurangabad to Mumbai to attend the matrimonial proceedings initiated by the husband. 4. In order to stress his point, Mr. Ghanekar submits, convenience of the wife is paramount factor in the matters of transfer. The wife has no independent source of income to maintain herself, she has no abode to stay at Mumbai. Learned Counsel, to buttress his point, took recourse to the judgments in 3 the matters of Anisha Sanjay Hinduja Vs. Sanjay Shrichand Hinduja ( 2003 (3) Mh.L.J. 139), Yogini Umesh Chivhane Vs. Umesh Uttamrao Chivhane ( Bom.C.R. 2004 901), Sumita Singh V. Kumar Sanjay and another ( AIR 2002 SC 396), Mona Aresh Goel V. Aresh Satya Goel ( AIR 2000 SC 3512 (1). In the latter case, the Lordships of the Apex Court found that the wife had no independent income and her parents were not in a position to bear the expenses of travel from Delhi to Bombay, to contest the divorce proceedings, she was found to be 22 years old and could not stay alone in Mumbai, as there is no other relation with whom she could stay and, consequently, the transfer petition was entertained. 5. The factual matrix of the present case needs to be illustrated. The earlier events concisely make it clear at Mumbai matrimonial proceedings initiated by the husband are also clamped 4 with counter claim by the wife seeking divorce. The wife has initiated another proceeding before the learned 8th Metropolitan Magistrate's Court where she is required to prosecute diligently. 6. It is not that there is any other petition or proceeding pending before any Court at Aurangabad. Whatsoever event that have taken place between the spouse, is at Mumbai. The witnesses, as are illustrated by Mr.Kedar, are to be from Mumbai. The respondent serves at Mumbai. The wife has attended proceedings for more than two years, filed six applications before the learned Judge, Family court, even claiming traveling expenses, interim maintenance. Mr. Kedar also submits that the husband shall be bearing travel charges and also the accommodation charges for escort. 7. Mr.Kedar, drew my attention to the judgment of Apex Court : 5 Kalpana Deviprakash Thakar V. Dr.Deviprakash Thakar ( 1997(1) HLR 211) wherein, Hon'ble Lordships did not accede to wife's request for transfer on following counts: "3. Insofar as the prayer for transfer is concerned, we have not felt inclined to grant the same for the following reasons:- (a) The husband-respondent is a medical practitioner and so his absence from Bombay would cause difficulty to his patients also. (b) His old and ailing mother lives with him at Bombay who needs frequent medical check-up and constant care. (c) The witnesses in the case are principality from Bombay as would appear from the list of witnesses which was produced to us for our perusal. (d) Petitioner-wife, has some near relations in Bombay. The petitioner, when asked about this fact, did not really deny the same. She, however, stated that they are not very close relatives and accommodation with them is insufficient. As, while coming for the trial, she would be required to stay for a day or two only at Bombay, this is not a material objection. (e) The husband has undertaken to bear the travelling expenses of the wife as and when she would travel from Palanpur to Bombay to attend court proceedings. Let him also bear the expenditure of an escort. (f) Palanpur is well connected by train with Bombay, because of which the petitioner would not have to face much difficulty in undertaking the journey." Incidentally, factual details in 6 present controversy too revolve with above situations and expect the husband not to face humiliation and even invite a stigma in his assignment as an IAS Officer. 8. Taking survey of above events, though the convenience of the wife has its root to be entertained, however, considering her standard of life to be a former Police Officer, served in Mumbai, and she herself has to prosecute above two proceedings, it will be in the fitness of the situation that the matter sought to be transferred from Mumbai to Aurangabad, needs to remain at Mumbai as the husband will meet the expenses for travel and also bear expenses for abode at Mumbai, including escort. 9. It was informed that the husband has to come to Aurangabad to interact with the female child twice in a month. However, that by itself, will not be a concession for the wife to seek transfer of the proceedings. 7 Hence, order: ORDER (a) The application for transfer rejected. (b) The husband/respondent shall bear the expenses for travel from Aurangabad to Mumbai, including escort charges and also lodging, diet charges for the wife. The application, seeking such assertions, before the learned Judge, Family Court, will be entertained by the learned Judge, on its own merit, expeditiously. (c) All the Civil Applications disposed of. Heard. The order is stayed for a period of four weeks. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE ... AGP/20-09mca