Dnyaneshwary Prasad ... vs Prasad Arwind Mali/Khairnar
2016 Latest Caselaw 4874 Bom

                                             1                     MCA-86.16.doc


                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,




                                                                              
                              BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 86 OF 2016




                                                      
     Dnyaneshwary Prasad Mali/Khairnar,
     Age 32 years, occup. Nil,




                                                     
     R/o C/o Prakash Raghunath Inamake,
     At post Babhaleshwar, Tq. Rahata,
     Dist. Ahmednagar                                  .. Applicant
                      versus




                                         
     Prasad s/o Arwind Mali/Khairnar,
                             
     Age 42 years, occup. Agriculture,
     R/o Navi Holi Chowk, Sangamneshwar,
     Malegaon, Tal. Malegaon, Dist.Nashik              .. Respondent
                            
                 -----
     Ms Suvarna M. Zaware, Advocate for applicant
     Mr N. N. Desale, Advocate for respondent
      


                                   CORAM :       SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.

                                   DATE :        24th August, 2016
   



     ORAL JUDGMENT:

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

2. Heard learned counsel for parties by consent finally.

3. This miscellaneous application has been moved by wife, seeking

transfer of hindu marriage petition bearing no. 371 of 2015 filed at

the instance of respondent for divorce, from the court of Civil Judge,

Senior Division, Malegaon to the court of Civil Judge, Senior Division,

Kopargaon.

4. It is being contended on behalf of the applicant that distance

between Kopargaon and Malegaon is about 100 kilometers and the

2 MCA-86.16.doc

applicant has been staying in her parental home at village

Babhaleshwar in taluka Rahata, district Ahmednagar. It is further

contended that the proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights have

been instituted in the court at Kopargaon at the instance of the

applicant bearing hindu marriage petition no. 234 of 2016.

5. Learned counsel for respondent although has reservation about

distance between the two stations as is contended by applicant, is not

in a position to dispute that one proceeding is pending in the court at

Kopargaon and that the respondent has caused his appearance in the

same.

6. Having regard to aforesaid, it would be expedient if both the

proceedings are conducted at one and the same place.

7. In view of the same, miscellaneous civil application stands

granted in terms of prayer clause ( B ) and is disposed of.

8. Rule made absolute accordingly.

SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, JUDGE

pnd