1 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 23 OF 2007 Sou. Manisha Santosh Patole ... Petitioner v/s Shri Santosh Ratan Patole ... Respondent Mr.S.B.Rajbhar for the applicant. Mr.Dilip Bodake for the respondent. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 20TH NOVEMBER, 2009 P.C.: 1. The present miscellaneous civil application has been filed for transferring the proceedings being Matrimonial Petition No.207 of 2006, pending before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Satara to the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thane. 2. This application is vehemently opposed on behalf of the 2 respondent husband by relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Gargi Konar v/s Jagjeet Singh, reported in (2005) 11 SCC 446. 3. The undisputed facts in the present case are, that the petitioner and the respondent were married in Satara on 16.5.2005 in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals. It appears that, differences arose between the petitioner and her husband i.e. the respondent herein. Allegations have been made that she was assaulted and verbally abused and driven out of the matrimonial home on 19.7.2006. The respondent filed the Marriage Petition No.207 of 2006 before the Civil Judge, Sr. Divn., Satara, for divorce, soon thereafter. It appears that the petitioner has also filed proceedings before the Civil Judge, Sr. Divn., Thane, for restitution of conjugal rights as well as an application for maintenance which are pending before the Thane Court. 4. In my view, it would be therefore appropriate to transfer the proceedings pending in Satara to Thane. The petitioner has stated that since the travelling time between her residence and Satara is about 4 to 5 hours, it would be necessary for her to be accompanied by an escort. She has stated that her father is working as a labourer with the Mumbai Municipal Corporation and it would be difficult for 3 him to obtain leave. The petitioner has also stated that she is not physically well and, therefore, it would be difficult for her to attend the Court in Satara. 5. The contention of the learned advocate for the respondent is that the convenience of the wife need not be seen in every case. He contends that since the respondent is employed as a teacher, it would be difficult for him to attend the Court in Thane. 6. I have perused the judgment of the Supreme Court. There is no categorical ratio laid down by the Supreme Court that in every case the convenience of the wife is not to be seen. In fact, there are certain other cases of the Supreme Court where the convenience of the wife is to be given paramount importance considering the facts and circumstances of each case. In view of the fact that the petitioner’s petition for restitution of conjugal rights and the maintenance application are pending in Thane, it would be appropriate to transfer the proceedings pending in Satara to Thane. 7. Accordingly, the miscellaneous civil application is allowed. 4 8. Matrimonial Petition No.207 of 2006 pending before the Civil Judge, Senior Divison, Satara, is transferred to the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thane. ..... 5