The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of considering the wife's convenience in matters related to court proceedings, especially in cases involving marriage petitions.

1. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the applicant and learned counsel appearing for the respondent/non-applicant.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard with the consent of the parties.

3. This application is filed for transfer of Hindu Marriage Petition No. 194 of 2009 filed by the respondent under Section 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the learned C.J.S.D. Nashik to the Court of learned C.J.S.D. Ahmednagar.

4. Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the marriage of the applicant and the respondent was solemnized at Ahmednagar. After the marriage the family members of the respondent were demanding money and household articles from the parents of the applicant. Since the parents of the applicant could not fulfill their demand, the respondent and his family members caused ill-treatment to the applicant and drove her out from their house. The applicant filed Criminal Misc. application No. 175 of 2008 before the learned J.M.F.C. at Ahmednagar for maintenance under section 125 of Cr.P.C. The learned J.M.F.C. after hearing both the parties has granted monthly maintenance to the applicant by an order dated 31.3.2009. On behalf of the applicant, it is further submitted that Hindu Marriage Petition No. 187 of 2009 is also filed by the applicant in the Court of learned C.J.S.D. Ahmednagar under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights against the respondent. It is further submitted that since the respondent is not paying the regular maintenance, the applicant has filed Criminal Inquiry Application No. 396 of 2009 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmednagar for recovery of the maintenance amount as respondent did not pay maintenance amount. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted the applicant is unable to maintain herself and she has no source of income. Whenever she has to attend the Court proceeding at Nashik, she has to travel about 160 kilometers from Ahmednagar to Nashik. As she is a lady one of her family member has to accompany her. The applicant has to spend more than Rs.500/- for travelling and Rs.500/- for lodging and food for attending the Court proceeding pending at Nashik. It is submitted that the said expenses is unbearable and inconvenient to the applicant as she has no source of income. Learned Counsel further submitted that the convenience of wife is to be looked at in the proceeding filed by the husband. Therefore, learned Counsel would submit that the application deserves to be allowed. In support of this contentions, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the following judgments of this Court as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

i) Sangmitra Ramakant Royalwar Vs. Ramakant Gangaram Royalwar, reported in 2009

(1) Bom.C.R. 316

ii) Shruti Shriram Jangam Vs. Shriram Balkrushna Jangam, reported in 2009 (6) Bom.

C.R. 433

iii) Smt. Vidya Shankar Iyer Vs. Shankar Nagraj Iyer, reported in 2006 (2) All MR 735

iv) Sandhya w/o Ananta Mane Vs. Ananta Manohar Mane (Misc. Civil application No. 37 of 2009 decided on 20.4.2010 [Aurangabad Bench])

v) Rajani Kishor Pardeshi Vs. Kishor Babulal Pardeshi, reported in (2005) 12 SCC 237.

vi) Roopali Saxena Vs. Ait Saxena, reported in (2004) 13 SCC 495

5. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the respondent is serving at Nashik and therefore, it is not possible for him to attend the court’s proceeding at Ahmednagar on each and every date. He therefore, prays that this application deserves to be rejected.

6. I have given due consideration to the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties. In my opinion, since there is no source of income to the applicant wife and being a lady it will be very inconvenient for the wife to travel from Ahmednagar to Nashik. On this ground alone this application deserves to be allowed. Counsel appearing for the applicant has also placed reliance on reported judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of