: 1 : vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION NO.54 OF 2009 Munirabegam Shahnawaj Patharvat ... Applicant V/s. Shahnawaj @ Badshah Ismail Patharvat ... Respondent Mr.Amit Shete i/b A.B. Borkar for Applicant Mr.R.M. Momin for Respondent CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: JANUARY 29, 2010 P.C.: 1. Leave to amend. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. 2. The Miscellaneous Civil Application has been preferred for transfer of the proceedings being R.C. Suit No.73 of 2007 from the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sangli to the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kolhapur. 3. The suit has been filed in the Kolhapur Court for restitution of conjugal rights. It appears that the applicant has filed her written statement and is contesting the suit. The applicant has also filed some proceedings which are pending in Kolhapur including R.C. Suit No.46 of 2009 which is pending before the CJSD, Kolhapur. This suit has been filed by the applicant for dissolution of the marriage. The applicant has also filed Miscellaneous Criminal Application No.118 of 2009 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kolhapur under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic : 2 : Violence Act 2005. 4. It is contended by the applicant that she finds it strenuous to travel all the way to Sangli from Kolhapur. It is also contended that her son has to attend school and therefore it would be impossible for the applicant to leave him alone while she travels to Sangli from Kolhapur. 5. It is true that as stated in the affidavit of the respondent that the proceedings in Sangli have travelled beyond the framing of the issues. In fact the deposition of the respondent has been recorded and the affidavit in lieu of examination in chief of one of his witnesses has been filed. That witness is yet to be cross-examined. 6. It is submitted by the learned advocate appearing for the respondent that u/s 22 of the Civil Procedure Code, a suit can be transferred only when an application is made at the earliest possible opportunity especially when the issues have not been settled. In my view, in a matrimonial proceeding, where a possibility of conflicting judgments cannot be ruled out, it is always advisable to transfer the proceedings to one Court. In the present case, the respondent has filed an application for restitution of conjugal rights which is pending in Sangli whereas the applicant has filed an application for dissolution of the marriage. It is obvious therefore that both these proceedings will have to be heard together, lest there are conflicting judgments in these two proceedings. 7. Miscellaneous Civil application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (b).