( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15 OF 2010 Pramela Madhav Yeshwant .. Applicant Age. 20 years, Occ. Household, R/o. C/o. Shivram Dagdu Garade, 12th Scheme, Shivaji Nagar, CL 5-35/2, Tal. & Dist. Aurangabad. Versus Madhav Radhakishan Yeshwant .. Respondent Age. 30 years, Occ. Senior Lecturer, R/o. At Post – Bhenda (Br), Tq. Nevasa, Dist. Ahmednagar Presently residing at Link Road, Near Savali Patel Marble, Pandharpur, Dist. Solapur. Mr. Santosh C. Bhosale, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. U.S. Malte, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM : S.S. SHINDE, J. DATED : 30.09.2010 ORAL JUDGMENT :- 1. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the applicant and learned Counsel appearing for non-applicant/respondent. Learned Counsel appearing for applicant invited my attention ( 2 ) to the grounds taken by the applicant in the application and also relied upon following judgments of High Courts as well as Supreme Court in the cases of Smt. Nanda Kishori V/s. S.B. Shivaprakash, AIR 1993 KARNATAKA 87, Anisha Sanjay Hinduja V/s. Sanjay Shrichand Hinduja, 2003 (Supp.) Bom.C.R.802 and Guda Vijayalakshmi V/s. Guda Ramchandra Sekhara Sastry, AIR 1982 S.C.1143. 2. Learned Advocate for the non-applicant submits that so far as incurring of expenses of travelling from Aurangabad to Pandharpur is concerned, Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act takes care of that. He also submitted that earlier H.M.P. 116 of 2007 was filed in the Court at Shrirampur, however, present applicant has objected on the point of jurisdiction. Therefore, the non-applicant was contained to file proceedings at Pandharpur. Again the applicant has raised objection. 3. After hearing Counsels for the applicant and non- applicant I feel it appropriate to grant rule. Hence, Rule. 4. I have heard learned Counsels appearing for the ( 3 ) applicant and the non-applicant at length. Basically three grounds are raised by the applicant in the application. Firstly, other proceedings are pending at Aurangabad, secondly she is studying at Aurangabad and thirdly the long distance between Aurangabad to Pandharpur, which is roughly 400 kms. Counsel appearing for the applicant in support of his contention that the proceedings can be transferred from Pandharpur to Aurangabad and section 23 is no bar to transfer proceedings, has placed reliance on the reported judgment of this Court in the case of Sangamitra Ramakant Royalwar V/s. Ramakant Gangaram Royalwar, 2009 (1) Bom.C.R.316. The Counsel further submitted that in the proceedings filed on behalf of the husband, convenience of wife is to be looked at. In support of his contention he relied upon case of judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Sumita Singh V/s. Kumar Sanjay and another, AIR 2002 S.C.396 3. Taking into consideration the grounds taken in the application and the law on the subject mentioned by the Supreme Court, I am of the opinion that the ends of justice would meet, if H.M.P. No. 81 of 2009 is transferred from the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pandharpur, Dist. ( 4 ) Solapur to the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad. The application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (C). Rule made absolute in above terms. The application is disposed of. 4. The concerned Court at Pandharpur to transfer H.M.P. No. 81 of 2009 to the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad, within one month from today. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad on receipt of said proceedings should make endeavour to dispose of the same finally within six months thereafter. [S.S. SHINDE,J.] snk/2010/SEP10/mca15.10