1. Heard.

2. RULE.

3. Taken up for final disposal by consent of the rival parties looking to the nature of the matter at hand.

4. The undisputed facts are that the applicant-wife is residing with her parents at Nagpur, after having returned from matrimonial house of the husband. It is also not in dispute that she has filed proceedings for maintenance and the proceedings under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act, in the Courts at Nagpur against the respondent-husband. The respondent-husband has filed matrimonial proceedings seeking a decree of nullity of marriage in the Court at Thane.

5. The present transfer application has been filed by the applicant-wife with a prayer to transfer Hindu Marriage Petition No.109 of 2013 from the Court of 3rd Civil Judge Senior Division, Thane to the Family Court at Nagpur before which Petition No. C-22 of 2013 is pending.

6. Mr. B.N. Mohta, learned counsel for the respondent-husband has raised a preliminary objection to the territorial jurisdiction of this bench of the Bombay High Court to entertain the present application for transfer on the following grounds :

i) The cause of action for filing Hindu Marriage Petition No. 109 of 2013 in the Court at Thane arose at Thane, which petition is sought to be transferred by the present application. That being so, the transfer application ought to be filed and tried by the Principal Seat of the Bombay High Court and not at Nagpur Bench.

ii) Sections 22 and 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Chapter XXXI Rule 1 of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960 and further read with definition of the 'High Court' in Clause 3(25) of the General Clauses Act and the definition of 'Subordinate Courts' in Section 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure shows that the subordination of the Courts to the High Court will have to be held on judicial side. If subordination of the Court is held to be on the judicial side then in that case the Court at Thane is not subordinate looking to the territorial jurisdiction of Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court. He relied on a decision of single Judge of the Madras High Court in the case of K. Kavitha v. Subramanian, reported in AIR 2007(NOC) 1841 (MAD.)

iii) The witnesses to be examined by the husband are the Doctors residing at Thane and Mumbai and it will be very difficult for the respondent-husband to produce witnesses in the event of the case being transferred to Nagpur Court.

iv) Respondent-husband is ready to pay the required charges to the applicant-wife and her escort, if any, to undertake to and fro journey between Nagpur and Thane.

7. Per contra, Mr. Thakur, learned counsel for the applicant-wife, in response to the preliminary objection relied on the following decisions of the Supreme Court and Single Judges of this Court. :

i) M.C.A. No.82/2007 (Mrs. Sandhya Rajesh Chaturvedi/Rajesh Ramkrishna Chaturvedi,

ii) 2011(1) Mh.L.J. 518 (Anita Balkrishna Barge/Balkrishna Sopan Barge),

iii) MCA No.320/2011 (Mrs.Priti Chauhan/Madansingh Chouhan),

iv) 2009(1) Mh.L.J. 303 (Sangamitra Vs.Ramakant),

v) MCA No.33/2013 (Sau.Snehal Kothekar/Omprakash Kothekar)

The learned counsel also relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court for transfer of the case on merits thereof in the cases of (i) Soma Choudhury Vs. Gourab Choudhaury, reported in (2004) 13 SCC 462) and (ii) Sumita Singh V. Kumar Sanjay, reported in AIR 2002 SC 396.

8. Mr. Thakur argued that there is no other go for the applicant-wife but to reside with her parents at Nagpur since she was driven out of the matrimonial house after two months of her marriage. The proceedings for domestic violence and for maintenance have already been instituted in the Courts at Nagpur and the respondent-husband has been making appearance either personally or through his Advocate in those proceedings. According to him, the respondent-husband is a Software Engineer earning handsome remuneration but keeping an eye on the proceedings filed by the wife for maintenance