Shailaja Ganesh Patil vs Ganesh Devidas Patil
2016 Latest Caselaw 5013 Bom

                                          {1}                             mca26-16

     drp
             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                        BENCH AT AURANGABAD




                                                                         
           MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION NO.26 OF 2016




                                                 
     Shailaja Ganesh Patil                                         APPLICANT
     Age - 23 years, Occ - Household
     R/o C/o Ajay Shivajirao Pawar,
     Sai-Shraddha Housing Society,




                                                
     A-4/4, Shirdi, Taluka - Rahata,
     District - Ahmednagar

              VERSUS




                                        
     Ganesh Devidas Patil (Thakare)                            RESPONDENT
                             
     Age - 27 years, Occ - Service,
     R/o Sector No.27-A, Plot No.19/5,
     Near TSJB, Pradhikaran, Nigadi,
     Pune - 411 044
                            
                                     .......

Mr. Vijay B. Patil, Advocate for the applicant .......

[CORAM : SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.]

DATE : 26th AUGUST, 2016

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with

consent of learned advocate for the applicant.

2. In spite of service of notice, the respondent has chosen to

abstain from appearing in the matter. In the circumstances, the

position goes unchallenged that some proceedings have been

initiated by present applicant in the court at Rahata and further

{2} mca26-16

that the marriage, which has been solemnized in 2015, appears

to have taken untoward turn immediately and the applicant is

since then been residing at Shirdi at her paternal home. The

respondent appears to have filed proceedings, purportedly for

restitution of conjugal rights at Pune.

3. In view of aforesaid, since proceedings filed by the

applicant are pending at Rahata and she is residing in Rahata

taluka, it would be expedient that the proceedings initiated by

the respondent at Pune be transferred to Kopargaon, as prayed

for by the applicant in present Miscellaneous Civil Application.

4. As such, the Miscellaneous Civil Application stands allowed.

Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause "B".

[SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.]

drp/mca26-16