1 MCA-63-10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Mhi MISC. CIVIL APPLN. NO. 63 OF 2010 Shilpa Kapil Agrawal ... Applicant Respondent Vs. Kapil Haridas Agrawal ... Opponent Petitioner Mr. Rohan Singh i/b. P.R.Arjunwadkar,Advocate, for the applicant Mr. Amit Kumar Bhoomik a/w. Rajan S.Mhamane,Advocate for the respondent. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 28th September, 2010. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner is wife of the respondent. They were married on 23.1.2006. Within a short time, their relations got strained and the wife left the husband's house and is presently living at Thane. The respondent-husband filed Marriage petition No.116 of 2009 for divorce in the Court of Civil Judge, S.D. Dhule, wherein she appeared and filed written statement. The petition is at the stage of recording evidence. Affidavit of examination-in-chief was filed by the husband in that petition on 3.3.2010 and since then, the wife took number of adjournments. She filed this application for transfer of the said petition from 2 MCA-63-10.sxw Dhule to Thane on the ground that it is convenient to her and secondly that she was threatened and abused by the husband in the Court premises. 3. The application is opposed by the husband. According to him, the present applicant-wife had previously filed a divorce petition in the Family Court at Mumbai by giving wrong address and finally, the Court dismissed that petition on the ground that it had no jurisdiction. On 6.4.2009, the husband filed a petition for divorce and in the year 2010, the applicant-wife has filed three different cases not only against the husband, but his parents and brother-in-law, who is residing abroad. All these cases are filed in Thane. One of them is for maintenance, another is under Domestic Violence Act and the third is under Sec. 498A, 504, etc. and the husband and his relatives are required to attend all these cases at Thane. According to him, actually she herself threatened the husband and relatives and the multiplicity of the cases filed by her is indicator of the same. 4. Even though the applicant contends that she was threatened by the husband and therefore she wants the matter to be transferred, except her word in this respect, there is no material to support. On 29.6.2010, when the marriage petition was fixed for cross-examination, adjournment was sought on her behalf on the ground that she was moving for the matter to be transferred from Dhule to 3 MCA-63-10.sxw Thane on the ground that she is the permanent resident of Thane and she alone cannot travel every time. In that application, she has not uttered a word that husband has given any threats or abused her in the Court premises. From that application, it is clear that only on one ground, that she was unable to travel alone she was to seek transfer of the matter The allegation of threats and abuses by the husband in the Court premises appears to be after-thought. Taking into consideration her conduct in filing number of cases, and particularly separate case under Sec. 498A and under Domestic Violence Act, more than 3 years after they were separate and long after her own petition for divorce was dismissed and after the husband had filed the Marriage petition for divorce, is an indicator of the same. 5. The applicant-wife is not an illiterate woman. She is a Medical Practitioner and is aged about 30 years. Thane and Dhule are well connected by train and as per the information given by the learned Counsel for the applicant, she has to board a train at about 11.30 to 12.00 in the night at Thane and she reaches Dhule at about 7.30 in the morning. Almost similar is the return journey time. In view of this, it cannot be believed that she cannot travel by train. The husband and his relatives are already facing three cases at Thane and if the case is transferred from Dhule to Thane, there would be additional one. 4 MCA-63-10.sxw 6. In view of the above circumstances, I find no substance in the present Application. The Application stands dismissed. 7. However, in the interest of justice, the trial Court shall allow the wife- respondent to cross-examine the petitioner and the witnesses. She will also be permitted to lead her evidence. However, she will not be granted any adjournment unless it is absolutely necessary. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)