IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that in matrimonial transfer cases, the wife's convenience is a critical factor, guided by the principles of justice and socio-economic realities.

JUDGMENT :

Milind N. Jadhav, J.

1. Heard Mr. Shubham, learned Advocate for Applicant and Mr. Pradip Chavan, learned Advocate for Respondent.

2. This Application was heard by me on 16th August 2024 and the following order was passed :

"1. Heard Mr. Jadhav, learned Advocate for the Applicant and Mr. Chavan, learned Advocate for the Respondent.

2. The Applicant is directed to serve a copy of the Application on the Advocate for the Respondent. The copy is given to him in my presence in the Court.

3. A grievance is expressed by the learned Advocate for the Respondent that though transfer by the Applicant is sought to Pune from the Family Court at Bandra, it is sought on the basis that the Applicant is having her job at Pune even though the Headquarter of her company is at Vikroli. I have impressed upon learned Advocate for the Applicant to place on record the details about Applicant’s job profile and working at Pune and for how long she will be stationed in Pune. This is only to ensure that it should not happen in the immediate future that after she gets re-transferred back to Mumbai, she makes another application for seeking transfer of the proceedings to Mumbai.

4. Since, this is the apprehension expressed by the Advocate for the Respondent, the Applicant is directed by this Court for answer the same. Equally, Respondent shall be at liberty to file affidavit-in-reply with objections, if so desired and the same shall be considered by the Court on the next adjourned date.

5. Stand over to 23rd August, 2024."

3. In compliance of the above order, learned Advocate for Applicant has placed before me a letter issued by the Head of Human Resources of the Employer Company wherein the Applicant is employed. It states that with effect from 1st August 2024, the appointment of the Applicant in the Pune office stands confirmed. The letter head also bears the office addresses of the Company at Mumbai as also Pune. The said letter is taken on record and marked "X" for identification.

4. I have heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties and perused the pleadings.

5. The present Application seeks transfer of Marriage Petition bearing No. A-85 of 2024 filed by the Respondent Husband from the Family Court, Bandra, Mumbai to the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Divison, Pune which is the correct jurisdictional Court according to the Applicant. Apart from the proximity of distance between the two destinations, the grounds enumerated by the Applicant in the Application clearly make out a case with respect to convenience of the Applicant. The Applicant's parents reside in Sangli, whereas she has been transferred to Pune and is working in an IT Company's branch office in Pune. The grounds enumerated in paragraph Nos. 3, 4 and 5 have been considered by me. The convenience of the Applicant in the present case who is the wife is of paramount consideration and importance in the facts of the case. This is so because, learned Advocate appearing for Respondent has filed Affidavit-in-reply dated 19th August 2024 and has vehemently opposed the Application for transfer.

6. According to Respondent, this is not a fit case for transfer in view of the fact that the Application seeking transfer has been filed by Applicant merely to frustrate the pending Marriage Petition instituted by Respondent. It is contended by learned Advocate appearing for Respondent that the letter of employment which has been placed before the Court today by Applicant does not state that the Applicant has been transferred permanently to the branch in Pune. In so far as this submission is concerned, the letter issued by the employer Company of Applicant is in respect of her employment location changed to Pune and about the status of her appointment, which is confirmed by her employer. Hence, the submission of Respondent cannot be countenanced. The other submissions which the learned Advocate for the Respondent has made are that the Applicant has lived and worked in Mumbai and also regularly travels t