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. Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that there is two years’ child and the applicant will be put to inconvenience if she is asked to travel from Pune to Nanded, which is roughly 500 kms. Learned Counsel further submitted that the convenience of wife is to be looked into in case of transfer of the petition. Learned Counsel further submitted that if the petition is under Section 10 and 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, in such case the petition can be transferred under Section 21A of the Hindu Marriage Act. Therefore, learned Counsel would submit that the application deserves to be allowed.

4. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent invited my attention to the reply and also additional documents filed on behalf of the respondent. He submitted that since the petition which is filed on behalf of the respondent/husband is prior in time as the same has been filed in June, 2009 before the Court of Nanded and the petition filed by the petitioner/wife in December, 2009, as per Section 21A (2) (b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, the petition which is filed subsequently, is required to be transferred to the Court in which the petition filed in earlier point of time. He further submitted that the husband is ready to bear expenses of travelling of wife from Pune to Nanded. It is further submitted that it is law that the petition is to be heard by the Court in whose jurisdiction the marriage has taken place. It is further submitted that since the husband is in Germany and father is given power of attorney, who is of 60 years old and witnesses are also from Nanded district, it would be in the fitness of things that present application is rejected and wife is directed to attend the proceedings at Nanded. Learned counsel for the respondent also invited my attention to the list of witnesses to show that the witnesses are from Nanded district. Learned Counsel further submitted that wife is possessing four wheeler vehicle and if husband is ready to bear expenses it would not be inconvenient to travel from Pune to Nanded. Further, the witnesses are staying in Nanded district. Therefore, this application deserves to be rejected. In support of the contentions, learned Counsel for the respondent relied upon case of High Court as well as Supreme Court in the cases of Shiv Kumari Devendra Ojha V/s. Ramajor Shitla Prasad Ojha and Others, AIR 1997 S.C.1036, Damyanti Devi V/s. Indrajeet, T.P. No.250/2006 (S.C.), Veronica @ Latha V/s. V. Philip James, DMC20091770, Rajkot Cancer Society V/s. Municipal Corporation, Rajkot, AIR 1988 Guj. 63 and Sourindra Narayan Bhajna Deo V/s. Rabindra Narayan Bhanja Deo, AIR 1987 Orissa, 47.

5. I have given due consideration to the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties. In my opinion, there is two years’ child and it will be inconvenient for the wife to travel from Pune to Nanded. On this alone ground this application deserves to be allowed. Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that section 21A(2)(b) has no application in the present case since the petition filed by wife is under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which is pending before the Court at Pune. Counsel appearing for the applicant has placed reliance on reported judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sumita Singh V/s. Kumar Sanjay and another, AIR 2002 S.C. 396, in which in para 3, the Supreme Court has held that in the suit filed by husband it is wife’s convenience that must be looked at. Taking into consideration said judgment, this Court has also in the case of Sangamitra Ramakant Royalwar V/s. Ramakant Gangaram Royalwar, 2009 (1) Bom.C.R.316, has held on the said line. Therefore, taking into consideration peculiar facts and also more particularly that there is child of two years’, which is with the applicant, it