1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7 OF 2010 Mrs.Vinita W/o.Vishal Duggad, Age-27 years, Occu-Household, R/o.Tal.Ghodnadi (Shirur) Dist. Pune APPLICANT VERSUS Vishal S/o.Prakashchand Duggad, Age-31 years Occu-Business, R/o.Main Road, Majalgaon, Tal.Majalgaon, Dist. Beed RESPONDENT Mr.G.K.Naik-Thigale, learned counsel for applicant. Mr.D.L.Khivesara, learned counsel for respondent (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 21 st APRIL 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. By the present application u/s. 24 of The C.P.C., the applicant has approached this Court for transfer of HMP No.38/2008 from the Court of Civil Judge, S.D.Majalgaon, to the Court of Civil Judge, S.D. Pune. 2. Heard respective counsels for the parties. Considering the small question involved about the transfer of marriage petition from one court to another, application is finally heard at the stage of admission itself. 2 3. Rule. 4. Rule made returnable forthwith. 5. It is not under dispute between the parties that the marriage between applicant and respondent took place at Ghodnadi and lastly they resided at Majalgaon. Considering this admitted position, if any petition under the Hindu Marriage Act to be filed, then u/s. 19 of The Hindu Marriage Act, the petition can be filed at either of the place in whose jurisdiction either the marriage took place or in whose jurisdiction, both the parties resided together. It is also not under dispute that since 17/08/2006, the applicant and respondent were residing separately. From the wedlock, one son is begotten, who is at present 7 years old and residing with applicant. Applicant is residing with her aged parents. HMP No.38/2008 is filed by the respondent in the Court of Majalgaon, Dist. Beed u/s. 9 of The Hindu Marriage Act for Restitution of Conjugal Rights. As against this, the applicant has also filed civil suit for permanent alimony/maintenance under the provisions of Hindu Maintenance and Adoption Act, in the court of Civil Judge, S.D. Pune, as there is no court of Senior Division at Shirur. 6. According to applicant, considering the distance from Ghodnadi to Majalgaon, which is more than 200 kms, because of her weak financial position, she can not attend the dates of proceeding. She also can not keep her minor son away when she has to attend 3 the dates of Court proceeding at Majalgaon and also considering the way in which she has to travel, she has to take the assistance of her aged parents, as they have to go with her to attend the proceeding at Majalgaon Court, and hence she has filed this application for transfer of marriage petition from the Court of Civil Judge, S.D. Majalgaon to the Court of C.J.S.D. Pune. 7. While opposing these submissions, it is urged on behalf of respondents that due to adamant nature of applicant, she has filed this application only with a view to harass the respondent. Respondent is from respectable family where 20 members are residing together. The applicant do not intend to reside in the joint family and her intention is to reside with respondent separately only at Pune and hence only to prolong and protract the litigation, the present application is filed. 8. Considering these submissions across the bar, as stated earlier, under the provisions u/s. 19 of The Hindu Marriage Act, the marriage petition can be filed at the place where the marriage was performed or where both the spouses resided together. In view of this, earlier I have stated that the marriage petition can be filed either at Majalgaon or at Pune, as Ghodnadi comes under the jurisdiction of Pune. 9. In the catena of judgments, it is observed by this Court as well as by the Apex Court that whenever any marriage petition is filed, 4 and in the said marriage petition, if any transfer petition is filed to transfer the marriage petition from one court to another, always consider the convenience of wife. 10. It is observed in the matter of Rajni Kishor versus Kishor Babulal, reported in (2005)12 SCC 237, that as the application for transfer of Hindu Marriage Petition was filed by the petitioner wife against respondent, the application for transfer was opposed by the husband on the ground that it is equally inconvenient for him to go to Satana from Mumbai, but he is willing to pay the expenses for her travel to Mumbai. The Bench negatived these submissions of respondent husband and hold that the convenience of wife petitioner require to be considered. 11. It is also observed in the matter of Anisha Sanjay Hinduja versus Sanjay Hinduja, reported in 2003(3) Mh.L.J. 139 with reference to the observations in the matter of Sumita Singh Versus Kumar Sanjay, reported in AIR 2002, SC 396, in which it is held that in a husband’s suit against wife, it is the wife’s convenience that must be looked at, and the circumstances which were peculiar to that case were sufficient to order transfer of the petition from one court to another. Such transfer was sought on behalf of wife. Undoubtedly, in the said case, the wife had sought transfer of matrimonial proceeding filed by her husband to the Court where the wife is residing. 5 12. In the present application also, the inconvenience caused to the applicant wife is specifically pleaded and the distance as well as the financial position, which is projected/pleaded in the application is not under dispute by filing the counter affidavit. It is to be held that considering the inconvenience caused to the applicant, it is necessary to transfer the HMP No.38/2008 on the file of Civil Judge, S.D. Majalgaon, to be transferred to the Court of Civil Judge, S.D. Pune. 13. In the premise, this application succeed. HMP No.38/2008, pending on the file of Civil Judge, S.D. Majalgaon is hereby transferred to the Court of Civil Judge, S.D. Pune. Registrar, Civil Judge, S.D. Majalgaon to make necessary arrangement to transfer HMP No.38/2008 to Civil Judge, S.D. Pune. Civil Judge, S.D. Pune is hereby directed that on receipt of R & P of HMP No.38/2008 in his Court, to issue notices for appearance to applicant and respondent. 14. Rule thus made absolute as indicated above. 15. Misc. Civil application stands disposed of accordingly. Considering the peculiar circumstances, no order as to costs. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/APRIL 2010/mca7-10