1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE MISC. CIVIL APPLN. NO. 115 OF 2007 MISC. CIVIL APPLN. NO. 115 OF 2007 MISC. CIVIL APPLN. NO. 115 OF 2007 Leena Tapan Dey ... Applicant Vs. Tapan Phanigopal Dey ... Respondent Ms. Seema Sarnaik, Advocate, for the applicant. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA, J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA, J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA, J. DATE : 25th January, 2008. DATE : 25th January, 2008. DATE : 25th January, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant. Perused the copies of the record as well as the remarks of Ms. A.G.Farswani, learned Judge, Family Court, Pune. 2. The respondent-husband has filed a Petition No.A-39 of 2007 before the Family Court No.3, Pune, presided over by Mrs.Farswani,Judge. The present applicant,who is wife of the petitioner, is respondent 2 in that Petition. By this application, she has made several grievances against the Presiding Judge and seeks transfer of the said Petition from the Family Court No.3 presided over by Ms. Farswani as she apprehends that she will not get justice from that Court. The original petitioner, who is respondent in the present application, has not appeared, but in view of the contention of the applicant that she would not get justice from the Court presided over by Ms.Farswani, I felt it necessary to call for her remarks in the matter. 3. The applicant has made two-fold grievances against the learned Judge. First is that the Judge was not accommodating her and second is that on 25.7.2007, when the applicant filed vakalatnma of Ms. Deepa Mavinkurve, Advocate, along with her 5 other colleagues, the learned Judge passed an order accepting the vakalatnama to the extent of Ms. Deepa Mavinkurve and not others. According to the applicant, this was unwarranted remark and the other advocates whose vakalatnama is field, are not being allowed to appear and conduct the case on behalf of the present applicant. 4. The remarks received from the learned judge, which also find corroboration from the copies of documents filed by the applicant herself, reveal that on 3 15.3.2007 itself, the applicant had filed vakalatnama of Advocate Ms. Deepa Mavinkurve and her five colleagues and that was on record since then. The matter was being conducted by the said lawyers. Several adjournments were taken by them. Inspite of having taken a number of adjournments, she had failed to file written statement. Therefore, the learned Judge had passed an order to proceed without the W.S. That order was set aside on 3.7.2007. According to the applicant, on 25.7.2007, she was directed by the Judge to file vakalatnma and when the vakalatnama of 5 Advocates was filed the learned Judge accepted the same only to the extent of one namely,Ms. Deepa Mavinkurve. The learned Judge points out that as already there was vakalatnama of as many as six advocates on behalf of the applicant, there was no reason for her to give her direction to file vakalatnama. The applicant suo mottu made an application on 25.7.2007 making a request to appoint Advocate Ms. Deepa Mavinkurve as her counsel. Therefore, the learned Judge granted that application. The learned Judge remarks that by the fresh application, permission was sought only for appointment of Ms. Deepa Movinkurve and names of her colleagues were not mentioned in the said application. The learned Judge felt that it must have been decided between her and her advocates that only Ms. Deepa Mavinkurve would appear 4 and not her colleagues. Therefore, when her vakalatnama was filed joining the name of Ms. Deepa Mavinkurve along with four other advocates, the learned Judge was surprised to see the same and in view of the fact that the permission was taken only for appointment of Ms. Deepa Mavinkurve, the vakalatnama was accepted to that extent. These remarks are fully corroborated by the documents filed by the applicant herself along with the present application. Therefore, it is difficult to find any fault with the learned Judge. 5. As far as accommodation part is concerned, the record reveals that number of adjournments were granted by the learned Judge for filing written statement and when the applicant failed to file written statement inspite of having taken last chance, the learned judge was compelled to pass an order of "No W.S.". but later on that order was also set aside and the applicant was allowed to file her written statement. The learned Judge has pointed out that number of adjournments were also taken by the advocates for the applicant for filing documents and according to the learned Judge, on 21.7.2007, none of the advocates was present on behalf of the applicant and the applicant mentioned before the learned Judge that her advocates were not guiding her properly and she wanted to change the advocates. On 5 this, the learned judge told her that it was for her to decide as to who should represent her in the matter and the court could not interfere in that matter. After that on 25.7.07 she made an application seeking permission to appoint Ms. Deepa Mavinkurve, Advocate on her behalf. That part is already referred to above. 6. The learned Judge has further pointed out that the affidavit in examination in chief was filed by the petitioner, who is respondent in the present application. The applicant was granted 8 adjournments i.e.on 3.8.07, 6.8.07, 10.8.07, 3.9.07, 14.9.07, 20.9.07, 5.10.07, 2.11.07, 5.12.07 and 22.12.07 for cross-examination. The learned Judge also noted that on one occasion, costs of Rs.500/- was imposed on the present applicant for seeking adjournment. The learned judge also noted that the husband had remained present on all the dates to submit himself for cross-examination, but only on one date when he was absent cost of Rs.500/- was imposed on him also. Taking into consideration this record, it is impossible to come to a conclusion that the learned judge of the Family Court was not accommodative to the applicant or her advocates conducting the matter. 7. It appears that the Advocate, Ms. Deepa 6 Mavinkurve herself has some problem and as per the remarks submitted by the learned judge she has 3 matters in the Court.In each of the matters, she has filed transfer application through her clients. IN one of the matters, this Court has already rejected the transfer application subject to cost and another application is said to be pending. 8. In view of these circumstances, I find no substance in the present application for transfer. 9. In the result, the transfer application stands rejected. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)