1. The learned Advocate for the petitioner/wife has put forth the following prayers in this application u/s 23(3), 24 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure :-

“1. This Misc.Civil Application may kindly be allowed, and

2. This Hon'ble Court may please be transferred the proceedings of Divorce-petition bearing N o.A-447/2018 pending in the files of the Ld.Family Court at Aurangabad to the Hon'ble Principal Judge of Family Court at Hubballi (Karnataka State)”

2. The issue, therefore, is as to whether this Court can exercise its jurisdiction u/s 24 to transfer a proceeding from a Court subordinate to this Court, to a Court subordinate to another High Court.

3. The learned Advocate for the applicant has strenuously canvased that u/s 23 and especially Sub Section 3, this Court has the power and jurisdiction to transfer such a proceeding to another Court which is sub ordinate to the Karnataka High Court. Reliance is placed on the following judgments :-

“1. Misc.Civil Application No.34/2014 of Bombay High Court, Bench at Aurangabad. Lavanya w/o Rameshwar Nalamwar v/s Rameshwar s/o Dadarao Nalamwar (Coram : Shri T.V.Nalawade, J.)

2. Lakshmi Nagdev v/s Jitendra Kumar Nagadev [(2005) 1-HLR 374 (MP)]

3. Bhakti Sharma v/s Mahendra Kumar Udenia [(1994) 2 DMC 166 (Allahabad)],

4. M.Manjulatha v/s M.L.Narasimham, [(1985) 2 DMC 70 (Karnataka)]

5. Mona Aresh Goel V/s Aresh Satya Goel [AIR 2000 SC 3512 (1)]”

4. The strenuous submission of the learned Advocate, relying on Lavanya (supra), dated 11/06/2014, is that this Court has transferred a HMP from the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Sr.Dn. Parbhani to the Court of the learned District Judge, Nizamabad which falls under the State of Telangana thereby being subordinate to the Telangana High Court.

5. I find that the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Durgesh Sharma Vs. Jayshree [(2008)9 SCC 648], was not cited before this Court when the order dated 11/06/2014 was passed at Aurangabad. My learned Brother in the said matter was therefore not properly assisted and the judgment in Durgesh (supra) was not cited for his assistance.

6. Learned Advocate then places reliance upon an order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Mona Aresh Goel Vs. Aresh Satya Goel [AIR 2000 SC 3512(1)]. I find that the said order which is in 4 paragraphs, reads as under :-

“1. The respondent-husband has been served but does not appear.

2. The transfer petition is filed by the wife to transfer the divorce proceedings taken by the husband in Bombay to Delhi, where she now stays with her parents. The transfer petition avers that the wife has no independent income and that her parents are not in a position to bear the expenses of her travel from Delhi to Bombay to contest the divorce proceedings. She avers that she is twenty two years old and cannot travel to and stay in Bombay alone for, there is no one in Bombay with whom she can stay. We are of the opinion that the transfer petition should, in the circumstances, be allowed.

3. The transfer petition is made absolute in terms of prayer (a), M.J. Petition No. A-636 of 1999 pending before the family Court at Bandra, Bombay is transferred to the Court of the District Judge, Tis Hazari, Delhi, who shall hear it. himself or assign it for hearing to a competent Court.

4. No order as to costs.”

7. It is, therefore, obvious that the Hon'ble Apex Court, on the one hand, noted that the respondent/husband has remained absent and on the other hand, concluded that the transfer petition for transferring the divorce proceedings filed by the husband in Bombay to the Court at Delhi, deserves to be allowed. Nevertheless, the Hon'ble Apex Court has concluded in Durgesh Sharma (supra) that the jurisdiction and power to transfer a proceeding from a subordinate Court under one High Court to a Subordinate Court under another High Court, lies only with the Supreme Court.

8. He then places reliance upon the judgment delivered by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Lakshmi Nagdev Vs