- 1 - mis.7.11 rng IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION MISC. APPLICATION NO. 7 OF 2011 Rajeshri Rajendra Sonawane .. Applicant vs Rajendra Dayanand Sonawane .. Respondent Mr.Amit Shetye for Applicant Mr.Sagar Joshi for Respondent CORAM: A.S.OKA, J DATE: 27th April, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This is an application under section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. On 8th February,2011 this court directed that the application will be heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. The applicant is the wife of the respondent. The applicant is a resident of - 2 - mis.7.11 Pandharpur in District Solapur and respondent-husband is a resident of Mumbai. The applicant alongwith her minor son filed an application under section 125 of the code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in the Court of J.M.F.C. at Pandharpur. The said application was contested by the respondent and an order of maintenance has been passed. The respondent has challenged the said order by filing a Revision Application in the court of the Additional Sessions Judge at Pandharpur. The application for maintenance was filed by the applicant in the year 2008 which has been decided in 2009. In the year 2010, the respondent-husband filed a petition for divorce in the Family Court at Bandra,Mumbai. Prayer is for transfer of the said petition to the Court at Pandharpur. 3. The applicant is a resident of - 3 - mis.7.11 Pandharpur. It is disclosed that the minor son who is presently about two years old is in the custody of the applicant. Therefore, it is pointed out that it is very difficult for the applicant to attend the Family court at Mumbai. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that affidavit in lieu of examination in chief has already been filed by the respondent in the petition for divorce. 4. At the stage of hearing of the Petition for divorce, the presence of the applicant will be necessary. Looking to the fact that the applicant is a resident of Pandharpur and she is having custody of 2 years old son, it will be difficult for the applicant to attend the Court at Mumbai. The respondent is prosecuting his Revision Application pending in the Sessions Court at Pandharpur. Therefore, there will be no - 4 - mis.7.11 prejudice to the respondent if order of transfer is passed as the Revision application filed by him in the said Court is still pending. Hence, following order is passed: ORDER Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (b). After the transfer of the Petition, the notice of the date shall be issued by the concerned Court to both the parties. Hearing of Petition is expedited. A.S.Oka, J - 5 - mis.7.11