Sau. Priya Girish Salunke vs Girish Ramesh Salunkhe
2016 Latest Caselaw 5935 Bom

                                                                    M.C.A.154/2016
                                         1

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

                MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION NO.154 OF 2016




                                                                         
    Sau. Priya Girish Salunke,
    Age 27, Occu. Household,




                                                 
    R/o c/o Shri Rajendra
    Vedu Pawar, Age 17,
    Haraje Colony, Deopur,
    Taluka and District Dhule                           ..Applicant




                                                
            Versus

    Shri Girish Ramesh Salunke,
    Age 34 years, Occu. Teacher,
    R/o 41, Shrikrushna Nagar,




                                       
    Shahnoorwadi, Opp. Laxmi
    Provision, Aurangabad,
    Taluka and District Dhule ig                        ..Respondent

    Mr Vinesh Solshe, Advocate h/f Mr M.H. Patil, Advocate for applicant
    Respondent-sole served
                            
                                      CORAM : SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.

DATE : 10th October 2016 ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard learned counsel for the

applicant finally with consent.

2. In spite of service, respondent has not caused appearance.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant states that this miscellaneous

civil application is moved seeking transfer of judicial separation

proceedings filed by respondent-husband bearing no. A-422/2014

from Family court, Aurangabad to the court of Civil Judge, Senior

Division at Dhule.

4. It is being submitted that the applicant is not economically well

placed and as such, has filed maintenance petition under section 125

M.C.A.154/2016

of the Criminal Procedure Code, which is pending before the court of

Chief Judicial Magistrate at Dhule. It is further submitted that her

father is not able to accompany her to come to Aurangabad from

Dhule to attend the proceedings on account of nature of his service.

5. The contents in the application go uncontroverted. Aforesaid

apart, it will have to be considered that despite service, there is no

appearance caused on behalf of respondent which in turn may

tantamount to tacit acceptance of the aforesaid request under the

miscellaneous civil application.

6.

Miscellaneous civil application, as such, stands allowed in terms

of prayer clause (C) and is disposed of. Rule made absolute

accordingly.

SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, JUDGE

vvr