1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION NO.25 OF 2006 Rahul Balasaheb Pansare. ..Applicant. V/s. Sou.Supriya Rahul Pansare. ..Respondent. Ms.Deepali Bhalekar for Mr.Uday Warunjikar for applicant. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J DATE : MARCH 8, 2006. DATE : MARCH 8, 2006. DATE : MARCH 8, 2006. P.C. : P.C. : P.C. : 1. Heard counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is gainfully employed. The reason for transfer, as is pressed on behalf of the petitioner across the bar is that the petitioner had filed proceedings before the Court at Ahmednagar in earlier point of time. That can be no basis to transfer proceedings instituted by the respondent-wife at Pune, though posterior to the institution of the proceedings by the applicant. 3. As mentioned earlier the applicant is gainfully employed. The distance between Pune and Ahmednagar is not of such kind that the applicant will not be able to undertake journey to attend the 2 court proceedings before Pune Court. In the circumstances, I see no reason to grant discretionary relief in favour of the applicant merely because the applicant had instituted the proceedings in the earlier point of time. Dismissed.