IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO 32 OF 2008 Mrs. Ketaki Kuldeep Nagarkar .. Applicant V/s. Mr. Kuldeep Suresh Nagarkar .. Respondent Mr. Abhijeet Sarawate i/b. Smt. Kokila Kalra for the Applicant Mr. Hitesh Vyas and Ajit Kulkarni for the Respondent Coram : R.M. Savant, J. Date : 16th February, 2009. P.C.: 1. By the above Misc. Civil Application, the Applicant prays for transfer of Hindu Marriage Petition No. 73 of 2007 pending before Family Court at Pune to the Family Court at Mumbai. 2. The Applicant and Respondent were married on 02.11.2003. Out of the said wedlock, child Divyansh was born on 14.01.2005. The couple started living separately since January 2006. The Respondent has filed Hindu Marriage Petition No. 730 of 2007 for divorce which is pending in Family Court at Pune. The Applicant herein, has filed Petition for 1 restitution of conjugal rights bearing No. 2868 of 2007 in Family Court at Bandra. 3. By the instant Civil Application, the Applicant as indicated above is seeking transfer of said Hindu Marriage Petition No. 73 of 2007 filed by the Respondent. It is the case of the Applicant that she is working with a company at Mumbai as Research Associate and she is busy between 9.00 am to 5.30 p.m and has a holiday only on Sunday. The child master Divyansh is aged about 4 years and goes to school at Nerul and therefore it is highly inconvenient for her to travel to Pune to attend the hearing of said Hindu Marriage Petition No. 730 of 2007 on the dates when it is listed. It is her further case that her parents are unwell and therefore, they are not in a position to take care of the child when she has to travel to Pune. The transfer is therefore sought on the ground of inconvenience. 4. The Respondent herein in the petition for restitution of conjugal rights bearing No. 2868 of 2007 filed by the Applicant has filed his written statement and made a counter claim, thereby seeking divorce. The Respondent has also been granted access to the child once a week for which he comes on every Sunday to Mumbai and therefore, if the said Hindu 2 Marriage Petition filed is transferred to the Family Court at Mumbai, no prejudice would be caused to the Respondent. 5. On the other hand, it is contended on behalf of the Respondent that the Respondent is ready to bear the expenses of travel of the Applicant to Pune to attend the hearing of said Hindu Marriage Petition No. 730 of 2007 filed by him. It is further contended that illness of the parents is just a ruse to seek transfer of the proceeding to Pune. 6. Having considered the rival contentions and in light of the fact that the Respondent herein has filed counterclaim seeking divorce in the petition filed by the Applicant and also in view of the fact that the Respondent is coming to Mumbai to meet his child Divyansh, in my view, no prejudice would be caused to the Respondent if Hindu Marriage Petition No. 730 of 2007 is transferred to Family Court at Mumbai. The transfer is also necessitated to avoid a conflict of decisions, as the Respondent has filed a counter claim for divorce in the petition filed by the Applicant. 7. It is well settled by catena of judgments of the Apex Court as well as this Court that the primary concern in such matters is the convenience of 3 the wife. In that view of the matter, the above Misc. Civil Application is required to be allowed in terms of Prayer Clause 4(1) and is accordingly allowed. Consequently, Hindu Marriage Petition No. 730 of 2007 pending before the Family Court at Pune is transferred to the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai. 8. Parties will be at liberty to apply for clubbing of both the petitions and for a joint hearing . (R.M. Savant, J) 4