(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16 OF 2009
Anita Balkrishna Barge,
Age 24 years, Occ. Household,
R/o. C/o. Pandharinath Sandu Surange,
Chetana colony, Wakratund Row Housing Society,
Saptshrungi Nivas, Garware Chowk,
MIDC, Ahmednagar ...Applicant
Versus
Balkrishna Sopan Barge,
Age 25 years, Occ. Service & Agri,
R/o. Dahiwadi, Tq. Sinnar,
District Nashik ...Respondent
.....
Mr. Hemant U. Dhage, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. K.C. Sant , Advocate for sole respondent.
.....
CORAM : S. S. SHINDE, J.
DATED : 6TH OCTOBER, 2010
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
1. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the applicant and
learned counsel appearing for the respondent/non-applicant.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:30:46 :::
(2)
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.
4
Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the
marriage of the applicant and the respondent was solemnized at
Ahmednagar. After the marriage the family members of the respondent
were demanding money and household articles from the parents of the
applicant. Since the parents of the applicant could not fulfill their demand,
the respondent and his family members caused illtreatment to the
applicant and drove her out from their house. The applicant filed Criminal
Misc. application No. 175 of 2008 before the learned J.M.F.C. at
Ahmednagar for maintenance under section 125 of Cr.P.C. The learned
J.M.F.C. after hearing both the parties has granted monthly maintenance
to the applicant by an order dated 31.3.2009. On behalf of the applicant,
it is further submitted that Hindu Marriage Petition No. 187 of 2009 is also
filed by the applicant in the Court of learned C.J.S.D. Ahmednagar under
Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:30:46 :::
(3)
against the respondent. It is further submitted that since the respondent is
not paying the regular maintenance, the applicant has filed Criminal
Inquiry Application No. 396 of 2009 before the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Ahmednagar for recovery of the maintenance amount as
respondent did not pay maintenance amount.
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.
i) Sangmitra Ramakant Royalwar Vs. Ramakant Gangaram
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:30:46 :::
(4)
Royalwar, reported in 2009 (1) Bom.C.R. 316
ii) Shruti Shriram Jangam Vs. Shriram Balkrushna Jangam,
reported in 2009 (6) Bom. C.R. 433
iii) Smt. Vidya Shankar Iyer Vs. Shankar Nagraj Iyer, reported in
2006 (2) All MR 735
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
495
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
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:30:46 :::
(5)
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.
7 H.M.P. No. 194 of 2009 be transferred from the Court of Civil
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:30:46 :::
(6)
Judge, Senior Division, Nashik, to the Court of learned C.J.S.D.
Ahmednagar, within one month from today. The concerned court at
Ahmednagar will inform the parties the date of hearing. The concerned
court shall make endeavour to dispose of the proceedings as
expeditiously as possible and in any event within six months from the
date of receipt thereof.
8 The application is accordingly allowed and disposed of. Rule made
absolute accordingly.
*****
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:30:46 :::