1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9 OF 2008 Sunita w/o Sandeep Borhade ...Petitioner VERSUS Sandeep s/o Pundalik Borhade ..Respondent ..... Shri A.S.Bangar, advocate holding for Smt. Varsha S.Ghanekar, advocate for the petitioner Shri R.P.Bhumkar, advocate for the respondent ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATED : 6 th July, 2009. ORAL ORDER : 1. Perused. 2. The petitioner has filed the present petition requesting to transfer Hindu Marriage Petition NO. 474 of 2008 filed by the respondent/husband before the Family Court, Bandra, Mumbai for 2 dissolution of marriage under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act to the court of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Aurangabad. 3. The petitioner contends that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 21.5.2003 at Shivgaon, District Ahmednagar according to Hindu rites and customs. After the marriage, both the petitioner and the respondent resided and cohabited together at Pune. However, due to incompatibility and strained relations between the petitioner and the respondent, they have been residing separately. Hence, the respondent/husband filed the petition for divorce before the Family Court, Bandra, Mumbai on 12.2.2008 and said petition is pending before the said court. Thereafter the petitioner herein also filed the petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court, Aurangabad. 4. The petitioner seeks the transfer of the petition filed by the respondent/husband for divorce from Family Court, Bandra, Mumbai to the Family Court, Aurangabad contending that she is serving at Akole, District Ahmednagar as Naib Tahsildar and she is required to travel about 400 Kms. Distance; and it is difficult for her to travel alone without escort being female; and as such 3 inconvenience is being caused to her to attend the court proceedings at Family Court, Bandra, Mumbai filed by the respondent/husband. It is also submitted that to avoid the conflicting decisions, it is necessary to try both the petitions together in the interest of justice. 5. The respondent opposed the present petition contending that the petition filed by the respondent for divorce before the Family Court, Bandra, Mumbai is earlier in point of time and, therefore, contended that the petition filed by the petitioner before the Family Court, Aurangabad be transferred to the Family Court, Bandra, Mumbai. 6. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that both the petitions be transferred to Family Court, Pune, which is a neutral place, rejecting the present application. 7. Heard both the learned counsel for the parties. 8. Considering the rival submissions, since it is pointed out that the petitioner is serving as Naib Tahsildar at Akole, District Ahmednagar and since apparently it is inconvenient for her to travel all the way from Akole, District Ahmednagar to Mumbai to 4 attend the court proceedings filed by the respondent at Bandra, Mumbai alone without any escort being female, the said inconvenience of the petitioner is required to be considered aptly. Hence, it is necessary to transfer the petition filed by the husband for divorce, which is pending before the Family Court, Bandra, Mumbai to the court of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Aurangabad to avoid the said inconvenience and also in the interest of justice. 9. At this juncture, it is submitted that the petition filed by the petitioner/husband, which is pending before the Family Court, Bandra, Mumbai is at the stage of judgment. Besides, it is also pointed out that the petition No. A-51 of 2008 filed by the petitioner/wife before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Aurangabad was dismissed in default and the petitioner preferred an application for restoration of the said petition and same is pending. It is also pointed out that although there was delay in preferring the application for restoration of the said petition, the petitioner herein has not preferred any application for condonation of delay. 10. On the face of the said background, the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the 5 respondent, on instructions of petitioner and respondent respectively made statements that the petitioner and the respondent shall appear before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Aurangabad on 20.7.2009 and the petitioner shall prefer an application for condonation of delay on the said date before the said court and the respondent shall give no objection for condonation of delay as well as for restoration of the petition for restitution of conjugal rights, and accordingly, the said petition for restitution of conjugal rights shall be restored by consent. However, it is made clear that the petitioner shall file the affidavit of evidence of the petitioner on the very date of restoration of the said petition. Meanwhile, it is agreed between the parties that the petition No. 474 of 2008 filed by the respondent/husband, which is pending before the Family Court, Bandra, Mumbai shall be transferred to the court of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Aurangabad and both the petitions be clubbed and decided together in accordance with law, in the interest of justice. However, Shri Bhumkar, advocate for the respondent requested to issue directions to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Aurangabad to dispose of both the said petitions within period of three months. 11. Considering the facts and circumstances,and also 6 considering the statements made by both the counsel on instructions of respective parties, and also as per arrangement agreed upon by them as afore said, in the result, Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 9 of 2008 is allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘B’ thereof and it is directed that Hindu Marriage Petition No. 474 of 2008 filed by the respondent for divorce and pending before the Family Court, Bandra, Mumbai be withdrawn from the said court and be transferred to the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Aurangabad and be clubbed together along with Petition No. A-51 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for restitution of conjugal rights before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Aurangabad after its restoration as agreed upon hereinabove and both the said petitions be tried together and be decided in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within the period of four months from the date of the receipt of the writ from this court, under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (Shrihari P. Davare, J.) dbm/mca9.08