IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE MISC. CIVIL APPLN. NO. 87 OF 2007 MISC. CIVIL APPLN. NO. 87 OF 2007 MISC. CIVIL APPLN. NO. 87 OF 2007 Mrs. Pranita Rajesh Pardeshi ... Applicant Versus Rajesh Umraosingh Pardeshi ... Respondent Mr.RajeshS.Datar, Advocate, for the applicant. Mr.G.M.Khambete & Mr. S.N.Khan,Advocates, for the respondent. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA, J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA, J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA, J. DATE : 6th February, 2008. DATE : 6th February, 2008. DATE : 6th February, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard learned Counsel for both the parties. 2. The respondent-husband has filed the Marriage Petition for divorce before the Family Court, Pune. At the time of filing the petition, the wife was residing at Navi Mumbai. Pending that petition, the wife shifted to Nashik and by this Application, she seeks direction to transfer the said Marriage Petition from the Family Court, Pune to the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nashik. She has also filed an application for maintenance before the J.M.F.C. Nashik after filing of the Divorce Petition. Her contention is that it is inconvenient for her to travel from Nashik to Pune for attending the Marriage Petition. The transfer application is resisted by the respondent-husband on the ground that at the Family Court, Pune, there is a facility of marriage counsellor and, therefore, the possibility of amicable settlement can be easily explored while this facility is not available in the District Court or the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nashik. 3. The learned Counsel for the applicant relied upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Sumita Singh Sumita Singh Sumita Singh vs. Kumar Sanjay, AIR 2002 SC 396 vs. Kumar Sanjay, AIR 2002 SC 396 vs. Kumar Sanjay, AIR 2002 SC 396 in support of his contention that the convenience of the wife must be looked at when such application for transfer is made. There is no doubt that if the wife is put to great inconvenience due to the pendency of the matter at a particular station, that inconvenience can be done away with by transferring the matter to a place where it is more convenient to her. In the case of Sumita Singh, the husband had filed Marriage Petition at Ara, Bhojpur, while the wife was working and living at Delhi. The distance between the two places was about 1100 kilometers and, therefore, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court felt that it will cause a lot of inconvenience if she is required to travel from Delhi to Ara. Therefore, the transfer petition was allowed. In the present case, the distance between Pune and Nashik is hardly 200 kms. Both the stations ar well connected with lot of frequency of buses. Therefore, I do not think much inconvenience would be caused to the wife. On the contrary, the facility of marriage counsellor at the Family Court, Pune, will be useful to both parties for the purpose of exploring amicable settlement between them. 4. Therefore, I am convinced that it will not be in the interest of the parties to transfer the matter from Pune to Nashik. 5. As far as the expenditure of travelling and if necessary stay at Pune when the wife will visit the Court at Pune, appropriate may be passed. As the parties are not instructed about the expenditure and the income of the husband, the wife may move the trial Court for such order. 6. With the aforesaid observations, the Application stands rejected. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)