Madhuri @ Rani Pratik Sharma vs Pratik Ramesh Sharma
2017 Latest Caselaw 155 Bom

                                                                              MCA 183/16   
  
                                               -  1 -



                     
          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD                                                  
                                     

                    MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION NO.183/2016


                                    Madhuri @ Rani Pratik Sharma,
                                    age 27 yrs., occu.housewife,
                                    r/o 203, Classic Shrusti,
                                    B-Wing, Sector 3, Plot No.30,
                                    New Panvel, Tq.Panvel.  
                                                      ...Applicant..

                         Versus


                  Pratik Ramesh Sharma,
                  age 30 yrs., occu.Artist,
                  r/o Chaitanya Colony,
                  Behind Market Yard, Ahmednagar. 
                                    ...Respondent... 
                                                     
                          .....
Shri Virat Rathod, Advocate h/f Shri T.V. Dube, Advocate 
for applicant.
Shri Y.S. Choudhari, Advocate for respondent. 
                          .....
  

                                            CORAM: SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J. 

DATE: 28.02.2017

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and with the

MCA 183/16

- 2 -

consent of learned counsel for the parties, the

application is taken up for final disposal.

2] This application is by wife for transfer of Hindu

Marriage Petition No.550/2015 pending in Civil Court at

Ahmednagar for restitution of conjugal rights.

3] Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the

applicant has been staying with her parents at Panvel

since the marital discord leading to harassment in the

matrimonial house. She has a two year child from the

wedlock.

4] Applicant had to institute proceedings for

maintenance pursuant to Section 125 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, which are pending at Panvel. The

situation has deteriorated further entailing her to lodge

FIR against her husband and in-laws at Panvel. However,

now it is stated to have been transferred to Ahmednagar.

The respondent has moved aforesaid Hindu Marriage

Petition for restitution of conjugal rights at

Ahmednagar.

5] According to the learned counsel, the applicant

having regard to the economical constraints and the son

being young and the difficulty in getting escort on the

MCA 183/16

- 3 -

dates of hearing at Ahmednagar, it would be expedient

that the Hindu Marriage Petition No.550/2015 is

transferred from Ahmednagar to a competent Court at

Panvel.

6] The learned counsel for the respondent submits that

the applicant is a well educated person and is capable of

understanding. It is not a case that it would be

difficult for her to attend the proceedings at

Ahmednagar. In the circumstances, he urges not to

indulge into the request made in the present application.

7] Though the learned counsel for the respondent has

submitted so, he has not been able to challenge the

veracity of the difficulties expressed by the learned

counsel for the applicant.

8] Taking overall view of the matter and particularly

Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act, it would be

expedient that the proceedings which have been lodged by

the respondent - husband at Ahmednagar, be transferred to

Panvel.

9] The learned counsel for the applicant states that

the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, is available

at Panvel.

MCA 183/16

- 4 -

10] In view of the aforesaid, the Miscellaneous Civil

Application stands allowed in terms of prayer clause (A).

Rule is made absolute accordingly. The dates in the

proceedings at Panvel be so arranged as would be

convenient to the respondent - husband.

(SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.)

ndk/c2821720.odt