- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION No. 13 OF 2009 Mrs. Poonam Ashish Kapadia ... Applicant Vs. Ashish Ramchandra Kapadia ... Respondent Mr. Pritesh K. Bohade, for appellant. Mr. S. V. Sadavarte, for respondents. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. DATE : JUNE 19, 2009. PC :- 1. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. Rule. By consent rule made returnable forthwith. 2. This application is preferred under section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code seeking transfer of Marriage Petition No.894 of 2008 from Family Court Pune to the Court of Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Malegaon. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that marriage between applicant and the respondent was solemnized on 19th December 2000 and out of said marriage wedlock, two issues were begotten, namely Mst. Kirish aged 7 years and Ms. Mehek, aged 4 years. It is submitted that parents of the applicant are old. The applicant is living with her children at - 2 - the mercy of her parents at Malegaon. It is further submitted that the applicant has no source of income. So also financial condition of the parents of the applicant is also not sound. 3. The counsel for the respondent contended that applicant can attend the proceedings at Pune and the respondent is ready to bear the traveling expenses, which may be incurred by the applicant to attend the proceeding at Pune. The learned counsel also criticized conduct of the applicant. He relied upon the decision in : Gargo Konar Vs. Jagjeet Singh [(2005)11 Supreme Court Cases 446]. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I find merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant. The applicant is young lady of 30 years. She has to look after her two minor children. Admittedly, the applicant has no independent source of income. The financial position of the applicant’s parents is also not sound. The distance between Pune and Malegaon is about 300 Kms. If applicant has to attend the proceedings, she will have to come at Pune. The applicant cannot keep her children of tender age, at Malegaon and go to attend the proceedings at Pune. The parents of the applicant are old and applicant has only sister who is also married and there is nobody to look after the children, if applicant is required to go to attend the proceedings at Pune. In the circumstances, in my opinion, applicant has made out the case under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code. - 3 - 5. The respondent on the contrary is well placed. He is a chartered accountant and therefore, must be earning handsome money. Though offer is given by the respondent to pay traveling expenses to the applicant, in my opinion that cannot be a ground to refuse the prayer of transfer of the marriage petition to Malegaon, in as much as there is nobody to look after the children of tender age except old parents, who cannot take proper care. So far as judgment of the Apex Curt in Gargi Konar (supra) is concerned, the same is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In the case of Sumita Singh Vs. Kumar Singh [AIR 2002 S.C. 396] it is held that convenience of the wife is required to be seen. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, rule is made absolute in terms of prayer Clause (a) of the application. 6. At this stage, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the the Marriage Petition filed by the respondent at Pune, after the transfer at Malegaon may be directed to be disposed of expeditiously and the applicant should not ask for unnecessary adjournments. The learned counsel for the applicant states that the applicant will not ask for unnecessary adjournments and cooperate for its expeditious disposal. This statement is accepted. Sd/- [ R. V. MORE, J.]