1 (3) WP 9057/10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Amk WRIT PETITION NO. 9057 OF 2010 Varsha Nageshwar Shinde .. Petitioner Vs. Nageshwar Madhavrao Shinde .. Respondent Mr. Vikas M. Mali for the Petitioner. Mr. Ravindra V. Sankpal for the Respondent. CORAM : MRS. ROSHAN DALVI, J. Date : 13th January, 2011 P.C. 1. The Petitioner wife has challenged the impugned order refusing her transfer application of the transfer of Petitioner’s Petition filed by the Respondent-husband. The parties married and lived in Satara. The wife is an Engineer by profession. The husband is a Broker. Upon a promotion the wife was transferred to Karad in 2009. The wife has filed an application under the Domestic Violence Act in Karad, a criminal complaint that she and her child were threatened also in Karad. She resided in Karad after her transfer and promotion. 2. The husband filed the Divorce Petition at the place where the parties last resided i.e. in Satara. The husband has also filed a Special Civil Suit for declaration of his ownership in a residential premises in Satara. The wife has filed an application under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code in Satara. 2 (3) WP 9057/10 3. There is distance of 35 km between the 2 places for the wife to attend the Family Court. The wife would have to attend and is stated to be regularly attending the proceeding in the Magistrate’s Court to prosecute in her complaint under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code in Satara. She however applied only for transfer of the Divorce Petition to Karad but not the Special Civil Suit filed by the husband or her own criminal complaint under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The wife is stated to be in easy circumstances since she is educated, employed as an Engineer and has a car at her disposal. It is contended that she can easily visit Satara for attending the Family Court proceeding as much as she would attend the Special Civil Suit or her criminal complaint. The dismissal of the transfer application under such circumstances is correct and cannot be interfered with. 5. Writ Petition is dismissed. ( ROSHAN DALVI, J.)