Alka Prasanna Gosavi vs Prasanna Parvanath Gosavi
2002 Latest Caselaw 1128 Bom

JUDGMENT

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.

1. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. Perused the records. Since common questions of law and facts arise in both the applications, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. From the facts disclosed in the Misc. Civil Application No. 90 of 2002, which are not controverted by the respondent, the petitioner has made out a case for transfer of the proceedings from the Nasik Court to the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai. As fairly conceded by the learned Advocate for the applicant, consequent to such transfer the respondent would certainly be entitled for travelling expenses bearing in mind the decision of the Apex Court in Shiv Kumari Devendra Ojha v. Ramajor Shitla Prasad Ojha and Ors., .

3. It is also pertinent to note that the proceedings initiated by the applicant in Misc. Civil Application No. 90 of 2002 in the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai were prior in time to the proceedings initiated by the respondent at Nasik. Being so, considering the provisions of Section 21 of the Hindu Marriage Act, and since the basic issue in both the proceedings being similar, both the proceedings are required to be heard by the same Court and to be disposed of simultaneously.

4. In the result, therefore, the Misc. Civil Application No. 90 of 2002 succeeds and is allowed in terms of prayer Clause (a) with further direction that both the proceedings are to be disposed of simultaneously, with liberty to the respondent to move before the Family Court at Bandra claiming travelling expenses for attending the proceedings at the Family Court at Bandra. On such application being made by the respondent, the Family Court will have to pass appropriate order in that regard bearing in mind decision of the Apex Court in Shiv Kumari Devendra Ojha's case (supra). Application accordingly stands disposed of with no order as to costs.

5. In view of the above order in the Misc. Civil Application No. 90 of 2002, and as no case is made out for transfer of the proceedings from the Family Court at Bandra to Nasik Court, besides such transfer being contrary to the provisions of Section 21 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the Misc. Civil Application No. 70 of 2002 is dismissed with no order as to costs.