ash 1 mca-85.08 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 85 OF 2008 Ajay Ramkumar Agarwal. .. Applicant Vs Priya Ajay Agarwal. .. Respondent -- Shri R.T. Lalwani for the Applicant. Mrs. Anita Agarwal for the Respondent. -- CORAM : A.S. OKA, J DATED : 28TH FEBRUARY, 2011 P.C. . Taken up for final hearing as pleadings are complete. This is an application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Applicant is husband and Respondent is the wife. 2. On 24th March, 2008, the Applicant filed a Petition for divorce as well as a separate Petition for return of the property in the Family Court at Pune. On 21st April, 2008, the Respondent Wife filed an application seeking maintenance under Section 18 of the Hindu Maintenance and Adoption Act, 1956 in the Family Court at Mumbai. 3. The applications were made by the Respondent being Misc. Application No. 43 of 2008 and Misc. Application No. 52 of 2008 in this ash 2 mca-85.08 Court for transfer of the Petitions filed by the Applicant in the Family Court at Pune to the Family Court at Mumbai. On 16th June, 2008, by a common order, the said applications were rejected. However, the Applicant was directed to pay to the Respondent a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards each visit to Pune. It appears that during the pendency of the present application, the order of this Court dated 16th June, 2008 was challenged by the Respondent by filing a Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court. By an order dated 23rd November, 2011, the Apex Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition on the ground of delay as well as on merits. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the Applicant submitted that in the Written Statement filed by the Respondent to the Petition for divorce filed by the Applicant, the Respondent has prayed for grant of maintenance at the rate of Rs.10 lakhs per month. He pointed out that in the said Petition, on 27th January, 2009, the issues have been framed including an issue of entitlement of the Respondent to claim maintenance. He submitted that the Respondent is contesting the Petitions filed by the Applicant in the Family Court at Pune. He submitted that the issue regarding entitlement to the maintenance arises in the proceedings filed by the Applicant as well as in the proceedings filed by the Respondent and, therefore, interests of justice will be subserved if the Petition filed by the Respondent is transferred to the Family Court at Pune. ash 3 mca-85.08 5. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent submitted that the Respondent is a resident of Holland and in fact, now she is residing in the Holland. She invited the attention of the Court to the averments made in various paragraphs in the reply. She submitted that even the Respondent’s parents are residing in Holland and it is very difficult for the Respondent to come down to India to attend the proceedings. She submitted that apart from the fact that there is no merit in the transfer application, the Applicant will have to pay for travelling expenses of the Respondent. The learned counsel submitted that no case is made out for passing an order of transfer. 6. I have given careful consideration to the submissions. The petition for divorce filed by the Applicant as well as the Application for return of the property filed by the Respondent in the Family Court, Pune are prior in point of time and the Petition filed by the Respondent in the Family Court at Mumbai in April, 2008 is under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. A copy of the Written Statement of the Respondent filed in the divorce petition filed by the Applicant tendered across the bar shows that in the Written Statement, a prayer has been made by the Respondent for grant of maintenance at the rate of Rs.10 lakhs per month and grant of expenses of Rs.5 lakhs on litigation. On 27th January, 2009, the issues have been framed in the divorce petition filed by the Applicant. Issue No.3 is framed as regards the entitlement to maintenance claimed by the Respondent. ash 4 mca-85.08 7. Looking to the very nature of controversy in pending petition, it is obvious that the same will have to be decided by one and the same Court. Now the prayer made by the Respondent for transfer of the Petitions filed by the Applicant in the Family Court at Mumbai has been finally rejected. As all the petitions will have to be heard together, the Petition filed by the Respondent will have to be transferred to the Family Court at Pune. Even according to the case made out by the Respondent, she is neither a resident of Pune nor Bombay and now she is residing in Holland. It is also in her interest that all the three cases are heard by the same Court. Therefore, the Petition filed by the Respondent will have to be transferred to the Court at Pune. 8. As of today, there is already an order of this Court directing the Applicant to pay Rs.5,000/- per month to the Respondent per trip to the Family Court at Pune. If the Respondent desires that some additional amount should be granted, it is open for the Respondent to apply before the Family Court at Pune in the pending proceedings for grant of additional amount. 9. Hence, the Application must succeed and I pass the following order. ORDER : (a) The Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). ash 5 mca-85.08 (b) Learned Principal Judge of the Family Court at Pune shall ensure that all the three Petitions are transferred to the same learned Judge. ( c) The learned Judge to whom the proceedings are transferred shall take up all the three Petition matters together for final hearing by recording common evidence in all the three Petitions. (d) Hearing of all the three Petitions are expedited. (e) It will be open for the Respondent to apply to the Family Court at Pune for grant of expenses towards litigation. The Family Court at Pune will not commence the final hearing of all the three Petitions for a period of eight weeks from today to enable the Applicant to make appropriate application. (f) No order as to costs. JUDGE