.UP 10 2; Draft, local; -n -PA4 -dFX-NORMAL -y -e; dumbp L.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T....R .UP 10 2; Fixed-pitch, local; -n -ml4 -PA4 -dFX-NORMAL -Fx -e -j; dumbp L.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T....R .PL60 .HM3 .FM3 .HE1 # ................L.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T........R .SP2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY@@ AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3 OF 2008@@ AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA .SP1 Mrs.Sai Rajendra Chaturvedi ... Petitioner Vs. Mr.Rajendra Prasad Chaturvedi ... Respondent Mr.D.S.Mhaispurkar, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr.A.M.Vernekar, Advocate for Respondent. CORAM : SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J.@@ AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA DATE : 13TH AUGUST, 2008@@ AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA ................L.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T........J .SP2 P.C. :-@@ AAAAAAA 1. This application is for transfer of two proceedings pending in the Family Court, Bombay to the Family Court at Pune, where the applicant resides. 2. After the marriage, the applicant and the respondent were staying in Bombay. Since the year 2003, the applicant has been residing with her parents at Pune. Therefore, the respondent filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights being Petition No.A-358 of 2004 in the Family Court at Mumbai. About a year thereafter, in March 2005 the applicant filed petition for divorce being Petition No.A/661 of 2005 in the Family Court at Mumbai. The applicant has been attending the dates of the proceedings by travelling from Pune to Mumbai. Both the proceedings have been directed to be clubbed together for hearing. The respondent has filed his affidavit of examination-in-chief in the petition filed by him. He is now to be cross-examined by the petitioner. It is at this stage, that the applicant has come out with the present application for transfer of the proceedings to Pune. 3. The applicant seeks transfer essentially on four grounds, the first, being that the applicant is unemployed and finds it inconvenient to go to Mumbai to attend the matter. The applicant has not disclosed in the application, that she receives maintenance at the rate of Rs.7,000/- per month from the respondent. Therefore, there can be no financial constraint as regards the travel from Pune to Mumbai. The second ground is that the mother of the applicant who always use to accompany her to attend to the proceedings at Mumbai is at bedrest on account of `spondolysis'. This would be a temporary difficulty and therefore cannot be a deciding factor for transfer of proceedings. 4. The applicant next claims that her father cannot accompany her because of "his difficulties". The application is devoid of particulars of the difficulties of the father to accompany the applicant to attend the matter at Mumbai. The last ground made out is that, in view of the past behaviour of the respondent, the appellant is unable to attend the court alone. The application is again devoid of particulars as regards the past behaviour of the respondent. Mr.Mhaispurkar, learned counsel for the applicant draws my attention to paragraph 29 of the petition for divorce in which the alleged incident dated 26th April 2003 is described. It is alleged therein that on that day when the applicant had refused to accompany the respondent, he had banged his own head on the floor causing bleeding injuries to himself. It is not the case of the applicant, that there has been any repetition of this act in the last five years. It is also not the case of the applicant that the respondent has caused her any kind of harrassment whenever she attends to the proceedings in Court at Mumbai. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent points out the comparative hardship, if the respondent is made to attend to the proceedings at Pune. The respondent is a Dance Teacher of Gandharva Mahavidyalay Mandal. If he is made to travel to Pune, the entire schedule of his students would get disturbed. Comparatively, the applicant who claims to be unemployed, will not be inconvenienced at all. 6. None of the grounds stated in the application for transfer of the proceedings from are convincing. Further, both the proceedings have already reached the stage of final hearing. The respondent has already filed his affidavit of examination-in-chief. In other words, the trial has commenced and it is not advisable to transfer the proceedings at this stage. Hence the petition is rejected. The parties to bear their own costs. (JUDGE)@@ AAAAAAA