1 MCA-105-10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Mhi MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 105 OF 2010 Sau. Pratibha Santosh Shingade ... Petitioner Vs. Shri Santosh Kumar Shingade ... Respondent Mr. Padmakant M.Shah, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Mahesh V.Rawool i/b. Shri Avinash B.Avahad,Advocate for the respondent. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 8th June, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner and the respondent were married in the year 2003. Because of certain disputes, they were living separately. The petitioner filed HMP No.218/2009 before the Civil Judge, S.D., Solapur where she resides, for restitution of conjugal rights. After that, the respondent filed HMP No.206/10 in the Court of Civil Judge, S.D. Pune, for divorce. The petitioner seeks transfer of HMP No.206/10 to the Court at Solapur on the ground that it is inconvenient for her to travel to Pune. 3. The learned Counsel for the respondent contends that the Pune Court has already directed the respondent to pay amount of Rs.1,000/- to the petitioner 2 MCA-105-10.sxw for every date hearing when the petitioner will be required to attend the matter at Pune and therefore there is no valid reason to transfer the matter. 4. After hearing the parties, I find that the petition filed by the petitioner for restitution of conjugal rights and the petition filed by the respondent for divorce need to be heard together by the same Court. The petition filed by the petitioner is first in time and therefore it will be in the interest of justice to transfer the later petition to the Solapur Court. 5. Therefore, the application is allowed and the HMP No.206/10 is hereby withdrawn from the file of the Civil Judge, S.D. Pune and stands transferred to the file of Civil Judge, S.D. Solapur for hearing and disposal as per law along with HMP No.218/09. The order passed by the Civil Judge, S.D. Pune directing the husband to pay cost of Rs.1,000/- to the wife on each date to meet the travelling expenses shall come to an end in view of the transfer of the petition. As the respondent-husband is said to be serving at Mumbai, the learned trial Court shall not insist upon his presence unless it is absolutely necessary for trial of the matters. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)