Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the applicant and learned counsel appearing for the respondent/non-applicant.

2 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard with the consent of the parties.

3 This application is filed for transfer of Hindu Marriage Petition No. 194 of 2009 filed by the respondent under Section 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the learned C.J.S.D. Nashik to the Court of learned C.J.S.D. Ahmednagar.

The learned counsel for the applicant submitted the applicant is unable to maintain herself and she has no source of income. Whenever she has to attend the Court proceeding at Nashik, she has to travel about 160 kilometers from Ahmednagar to Nashik. As she is a lady one of her family member has to accompany her. The applicant has to spend more than Rs.500/- for travelling and Rs.500/- for lodging and food for attending the Court proceeding pending at Nashik. It is submitted that the said expenses is unbearable and inconvenient to the applicant as she has no source of income. Learned Counsel further submitted that the convenience of wife is to be looked at in the proceeding filed by the husband. Therefore, learned Counsel would submit that the application deserves to be allowed. In support of this contentions, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the following judgments of this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

iv) Sandhya w/o Ananta Mane Vs. Ananta Manohar Mane (Misc.

Civil application No. 37 of 2009 decided on 20.4.2010 [Aurangabad Bench])

v) Rajani Kishor Pardeshi Vs. Kishor Babulal Pardeshi, reported in (2005) 12 SCC 237.

vi) Roopali Saxena Vs. Ait Saxena, reported in (2004) 13 SCC 5 Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the respondent is serving at Nashik and therefore, it is not possible for him to attend the court's proceeding at Ahmednagar on each and every date.

He therefore, prays that this application deserves to be rejected.

6 I have given due consideration to the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties. In my opinion, since there is no source of income to the applicant wife and being a lady it will be very inconvenient for the wife to travel from Ahmednagar to Nashik. On this ground alone this application deserves to be allowed. Counsel appearing for the applicant has also placed reliance on reported judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sumita Singh V/s. Kumar Sanjay and another, AIR 2002 S.C. 396, in para 3 of the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in the suit filed by husband it is wife's convenience that must be looked at. Taking into consideration said judgment, this Court has also in the case of Sangamitra Ramakant Royalwar V/s. Ramakant Gangaram Royalwar, 2009 (1) Bom.C.R.316, has taken a same view. Therefore, taking into consideration peculiar facts and, it would be in the interest of justice, if the pending proceedings in H.M.P. No. 194 of 2009 are transferred from the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nashik to the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, at Ahmednagar. Therefore, H.M.P. No. 194 of 2009 from the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nashik, is transferred to the Family Court at Ahmednagar. The application is allowed to above extent. Needless to mention that H.M.P. No. 187 of 2009 filed by wife in the court of learned C.J.S.D. Ahmednagar and also transferred H.M.P. No. 194 of 2009 will be heard together by the concerned Judge, at Ahmednagar.