1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4 OF 2010 Deepali W/o.Sharad Sontakke, Age-30 years, Occu-Household, R/o.C/o.Vimaldas S/o.Nagnath Ghodke, Mahavir Chowk, CIDCO (New) Nanded, Tq. & Dist. Nanded APPLICANT VERSUS Sharad S/o.Shrikumar Sontakke, Age-34 years, Occu-Business, R/o.New Mondha, Hingoli, Tq. and Dist. Hingoli RESPONDENT Mr.Milind M.Patil (Beedkar), learned counsel for applicant. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 12/04/2010 PER COURT : 1. By the present application, the applicant has approached this Court for transfer of HMP No.13/2007 from the file of Civil Judge, S.D. Hingoli to the file of Civil Judge, S.D. Nanded, or any other competent court at Nanded. This application is moved by the applicant u/s. 24 of The CPC. The notice of this petition was served on respondent on 04/02/2010, but, the respondent preferred not to appear before this Court. Heard learned counsel for petitioner. 2 2. During the course of submissions, it is brought to the notice of this Court that the marriage between petitioner and respondent was solmnized at Nanded on 08/05/2004. Thereafter, petitioner and respondent started residing at Hingoli, which is the matrimonial place. Son was begotten by name Ajay, who is at present 4 ½ years old. Due to dispute between petitioner and respondent, the petitioner was driven out from house somewhere in the year 2007, and thereafter petition for divorce was filed by the respondent in the Court of Civil Judge, S.D. Hingoli bearing No.HMP no.13/2007. This transfer petition is filed by the petitioner wife against the respondent husband, mainly on 3 grounds, that to attend the court at Hingoli, which is at the distance of 80kms. from Nanded, causing inconvenience to her because of financial difficulties. According to the petitioner, there is nobody in the family of her parents to look after her minor son. In the premise to attend all the dates at Hingoli Court, she has to carry her minor son with her. It is also alleged that her parents i.e. her father and mother are old aged persons and either of them have to accompany her to attend the dates in the Court of Civil Judge, S.D. Hingoli, which also cause inconvenience to her. It is further alleged that when she and her father attended the dates at Hingoli on 05/11/2009 and 05/12/2009, threats were given by the respondent husband to her as well as her father, which cause fear in her mind that the respondent may cause any injury to her as well as to her father, and on these grounds, she claimed that HMP No.13/2007 be transferred to any Court of Civil Judge, S.D. at Nanded. In support of her contention, reliance is placed about the 3 observations in the matter of Anisha Sanjay Hinduja versus Sanjay Shrichand Hinduja, reported in 2003(3) Mh.L.J. 139, wherein reference of the judgment in the matter of Sumita Singh versus Kumar Sanjay and another is find place in para no.6,9 and 12 (reported in AIR 2002, SC 396). It is held in para no.9 of this judgment that in the husband’s suit against wife, it is the wife’s convenience that must be looked at and the circumstances which are peculiar to that case were sufficient to order transfer of the petition from one Court to another. In para no.7 and 8 of the cited judgment find reference about the circumstances in which transfer petition u/s. 24 can be allowed. Considering the place where the marriage petition can be filed and by which Court, it can be entertained u/s. 19 of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 3. In the given case, i.e. the transfer petition before this Court, the marriage took place at Nanded, while the matrimonial place of the respondent and petitioner is at Hingoli. In the premise, the marriage petition can be filed either at Nanded or at Hingoli, but it appears that respondent husband as per his convenience, has filed the marriage petition at Hingoli. Inspite of service, the respondents have not participated in the proceedings, indicates that the opportunity given to him is not availed by him to contravene the allegations against him about the threats given to the petitioner as well as father of the petitioner, who is old aged persons. The petitioner has to carry her minor son to attend every date of hearing in the Court at Hingoli, is also not disputed by filing counter affidavit. 4 In the premise, case is made out to grant the transfer petition. Hence order. O R D E R 1. Petition is allowed. 2. H.M.P. No.13/2007 on the file of Civil Judge, S.D.Hingoli is transferred to the file of Civil Judge, S.D. Nanded. The Civil Judge, S.D. Hingoli to take necessary steps to send the R & P in HMP No. 13/2007 to the Court of Civil Judge, S.D. Nanded within the period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 3. After receipt of R & P in HMP No.13/2007 by Civil Judge, S.D. Nanded, to issue notice to the respondent and petitioner for their appearance and then to dispose of the HMP No.13/2007 in accordance with Law. 4. Application stands disposed of accordingly. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/APRIL 2010/mca4-10