1 Misc. Civil Application No.29/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.29 OF 2011 Manisha w/o Ganesh Shinde ... APPLICANT VERSUS Ganesh s/o Mahadev Shinde ... RESPONDENT ..... Shri S.S. Rathi, Advocate for the applicant Shri Abhijit Choudhari, Advocate for respondent ..... CORAM : S.S. SHINDE, J. DATED : 18th July, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. Perused the contents of the application. It is stated in para No.8 of the application that if the applicant is required to go to Beed for prosecuting the case for restitution of conjugal rights filed by the respondent/ husband, great hardship would be caused to her and the minor son. The other grounds are also stated in the application. Relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court, in the case of Sumita Singh Vs. Kumar Sanjay & anr. (AIR 2002 SC 396), 2 Misc. Civil Application No.29/2011 it is submitted that, in the proceedings filed by the husband, convenience of the wife should be looked into. 2. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that there is a possibility of settlement. Therefore, this matter be adjourned to explore the possibility of settlement. He further vehemently opposed the application and submitted that this Court may not interfere. 3. Upon hearing the counsel for the applicant and counsel for the respondent, and upon perusal of the pleadings in the application and in particular para 11 of the said application, I am convinced that case is made to allow this application. 4. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Sumita Singh Vs. Kumar Sanjay & anr. (AIR 2002 SC 396), held in paragraph No.3 as under : “3. It is the husband’s suit against the wife. It is the wife’s convenience that, therefore, must be looked at. The circumstances indicated above are sufficient to make the transfer petition absolute.” 5. Therefore, taking overall view of the matter, in my opinion, the application deserves to be allowed. The application is 3 Misc. Civil Application No.29/2011 allowed in terms of prayer clause (B). The proceedings of H.M.P. No.220/2010, pending on the file of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Beed is transferred to the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Parbhani. After receipt of the order of this Court, the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Beed shall forthwith transfer the proceedings of H.M.P. No.220/2010 to the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Parbhani, within a week from the date of receipt of the order. The parties to appear before the concerned Court in the first week of August 2011. The concerned Court will decide the further date of hearing. Since the respondent will have to come to Parbhani for prosecuting his H.M.P., it is desirable that the proceedings should be heard by the concerned Judge as expeditiously as possible and in any case within a period of one year from today. The Civil Judge, Senior Division, Parbhani is directed to hear the H.M.P. No. 220/2010 and dispose of the same in accordance with law within one year. Rule made absolute in above terms. ( S.S. SHINDE, J. ) fmp/mca29.11