1 mca36.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 36 OF 2011 Sarika w/o Gajanan Haral, Age: 24 years, Occ: Household, R/o. Kapadsing, Tq. Sengaon, Present Juna Tq. Mukhed, District Nanded. ...APPLICANT VERSUS Gajanan s/o Chandrakant Haral, Age: 29 years,Occ: Service, R/o. Kapadsing, At present Babhulgaon, Tq. Sengaon, District Hingoli. ...RESPONDENT ... Mr. P.P. Uttarwar, Advocate for applicant. Mr. A.R. Rathod, Advocate for respondent sole. ... CORAM: S.S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 11TH OCTOBER, 2011 PER COURT : . Heard learned Counsel appearing for the applicant and learned Counsel appearing for the respondent at length. 2 mca36.11 2. Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant invited my attention to the pleadings and grounds taken in the Misc. Civil Application and argued that, applicant wife has no independent income source for travelling from her parent's place to Hingoli to attend the proceedings filed by the respondent husband. It is further submitted that, the distance between Juna, Tq. Mukhed to Hingoli is 200 kms. to 300 kms., and it will cause inconvenience to the applicant wife if the proceedings filed by the respondent husband at Hingoli are not transferred to the place where the applicant wife is residing with her parents. Therefore, learned Counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that, the Misc. Civil Application may be allowed. 3. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent submits that, after few days of the marriage, the applicant started visiting the place of her parents every after 15 to 20 days. The respondent was 3 mca36.11 constrained to issue notice on 02-03-2010 to the applicant for cohabitation. It is further submitted that, on 16-03-2010 criminal complaint was filed by the applicant under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. It is further submitted that, if the time is granted, the respondent would try to settle the matter between the parties. It is further submitted that, another case is filed by the applicant wherein 54 relatives of the respondent are added as parties to the said application. It is further submitted that, the distance between the place where the applicant is right now residing and Hingoli is not more than 200 kms. and therefore, any prayer for transfer on the ground of distance cannot be entertained. It is further submitted that, brother of the applicant is Doctor by profession and he can very well finance for the journey of the applicant from her place to Hingoli to prosecute the petition filed by the respondent husband. It is further submitted that, it is not necessary for the applicant to attend the Court on each and every 4 mca36.11 date of hearing and if at all, the applicant has to travel, her brother can accompany the applicant to travel from her place to Hingoli. It is further submitted that, taking into consideration the conduct of the applicant of filing various complaints without substance, may be taken into consideration and this application may be rejected. 4. I have given due consideration to the rival submissions. In my opinion, the application deserves to be allowed for two reasons that, (1) it is stated by the wife that she is not financially in a sound position to bear expenses to travel from the place of her parents to Hingoli on each date of hearing, where the petition is filed by the respondent husband and (2) it will cause inconvenience to the applicant wife. The proceedings filed by the respondent husband are on the ground of cruelty and for divorce. Having been filed such petition before the competent Court, the contention of the Counsel for the respondent 5 mca36.11 that, he will try to settle the matter, cannot be countenanced since the proceedings are pending before the competent Court. There is no assurance by the husband that, he will bore the expenses of travelling of applicant. . The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumit Singh vs. Kumar Sanjay reported in (2001) 10 S.C.C. 41 held that, the proceedings filed by husband against his wife in Ara, Bhojpur, Bihar - wife residing in Delhi expressing her inability to contest the said case in Ara, it is the husband's suit against the wife and therefore convenience of the wife must be looked at. Therefore, in the facts of that case, Supreme Court transferred the proceedings from Ara to Delhi. Yet in another case of Mona Aresh Goel vs. Aresh Satya Goel reported in (2000) 9 S.C.C. 255, the Hon'ble Supreme Court taking into consideration the fact that, the wife has no independent income and that her parents are not in a position to bear the expenses of her travel from Delhi to Bombay to 6 mca36.11 contest the divorce proceedings, allowed the transfer petition filed by the wife. 5. In that view of the matter, Misc. Civil Application deserves to be allowed, same is allowed and stands disposed of. . The Civil Judge, Senior Division, Hingoli is directed to transfer H.M.P. No. 73 of 2010 to the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mukhed, within one week from the date of receipt of the order of this Court. [S.S. SHINDE, J.] sut/OCT11