* 1 * WP. 7394-2011 7.10.2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7394 OF 2011 Shri. Purarva Ashok Magar ......Petitioner/Orig.Resp. V/S. Mrs. Smita Purarva Magar ......Respondent/Orig. Applicant * * * * Mr. S.S. Shah, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondent. CORAM :- R.G. KETKAR, J. 7 October, 2011. P.C. :- 1. Heard Mr. Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner-husband has challenged the order dated 3rd May, 2011 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Solapur below Exhibit-1 in Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 91 of 2010. By that order, the learned District Judge allowed the application made by the respondent-wife under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for transferring H.M. Petition No. 88 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for divorce. 3. The respondent filed the application for transfer on the ground * 2 * WP. 7394-2011 7.10.2011 that the petitioner-husband instituted H.M. Petition No. 88 of 2009 in the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Malshiras and she has instituted H.M. Petition No. 3 of 2010 for restitution of conjugal rights and the said petition is filed in the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Barshi. She therefore filed the present application for transfer of H.M. Petition No. 88 of 2009 pending in the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Malshiras to the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Barshi. 4. Mr. Shah, submitted that the convenience of the wife cannot be a criterion for transferring the petition filed by him. Infact, the petitioner had instituted H.M. Petition No.88 of 2009 on 27th November, 2009 and the respondent instituted H.M. Petition No. 3 of 2010 sometime in January, 2010. The learned Judge transferred the petition only on the ground that in order to avoid conflicting findings, it is just and proper to hear both the petitions by one Court. He accordingly withdrew H.M. Petition No. 88 of 2009 from the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Malshiras and transferred the same for hearing and disposal alongwith H.M. Petition No. 3 of 2010. 4. Perusal of the application and particularly paragraphs-2 to 4 indicates that the prayer for transfer was made on the ground that she has to attend proceedings at Malshiras alongwith her father who is aged. She has also asserted that it causes inconvenience to them as also it is * 3 * WP. 7394-2011 7.10.2011 inconvenient to attend the court proceedings and since her petition is also pending, she prayed for transfer of the case instituted by the petitioner-husband to the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Barshi. 5. I do not find that the learned District Judge committed any error in withdrawing the case from the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Malshiras and transfer the same to the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Barshi. Having regard to the assertions made in the application for transfer, in my opinion, no case is made out for interfering with the order passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Solapur. Hence, the petition fails and the same is dismissed. [R.G. KETKAR, J]