{1}

mca92-15

drp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION NO.92 OF 2015

Kalimabegum s/o Shaikh Taher

APPLICANT

Age - 45 years, Occ - Household,

R/o Plot No. 45, N-13/A,

Himayatbagh, In front of Maulana Azad College,

Aurangabad

VERSUS

Shaikh Taher Shaikh Pasha

RESPONDENT

Age - 50 years, Occ - Meter Reader

R/o Near Hospital of Dr. Pradeep Joshi,

Asef nagar, Beed,

Taluka and District - Beed

.......

Mrs. A. N. Ansari, Advocate for the applicant

Mr. Sayyed Tauseef, Advocate for the respondent

.......

[CORAM : SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.]

DATE : 25

^th JANUARY, 2016

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with

consent of learned advocates for the parties.

2.

Learned advocate for the applicant submits that on the

verge of commencement of SSC examination of second

daughter, the applicant had been driven out of the house by the

respondent - husband and she with great strain and difficulty

had taken the daughter from Aurangabad to Beed to attend to

{2}

mca92-15

the examination. It is further being submitted that the couple's

first daughter is a medical practitioner at Aurangabad and the

third child is also taking education at Aurangabad. Learned

advocate for the applicant goes on to submit that it would be

very difficult for the applicant to attend to the proceedings

initiated by the respondent for restitution of conjugal rights at

Beed as she perceives threats and further contends that she is a

parda nashin lady.

3.

Learned advocate for the respondent, however, submits

that aforesaid difficulties can be taken care of and that the

respondent is ready to bear expenses of journey of the applicant

from Aurangabad to Beed and back. It is contended by learned

advocate for the respondent that the respondent has suffered

two accidents and in one he lost his right eye and in another he

got his leg fractured and as such, he is a handicapped person.

Having regard to aforesaid it is earnestly requested by learned

advocate for the respondent that the proceedings be maintained

at Beed.

4.

Learned advocate for the respondent further submits that

there cannot be hard and fast rule that the proceedings be

transferred to a place where the wife is residing. He, for said

{3}

mca92-15

purpose places reliance on a judgment reported in (2006) 9 SCC

197 “Anindita Das V/s Surjit Das”, wherein the Supreme Court has

considered that leniency shown to women is often being misused

and taken disadvantage of and in the peculiar circumstances

involved in the case, considered that there was no ground for

transfer of proceedings. In the other case reported in (1996) 11

SCC 96, “Kalpana Deviprakash Thakar V/s Dr.Deviprakash Thakar”, the

Supreme Court, having regard to relevant factors disallowed the

transfer petition. In that case, it appears that the respondent -

husband was a medical practitioner and his absence from

Mumbai was causing difficulty, his old and ailing mother was in

Mumbai and the witnesses were to be principally from Mumbai

and the wife had some near relations in Mumbai. Additionally,

the husband had undertaken to bear traveling expenses of wife

along with that of the escort. It was in those circumstances, the

court had refused to transfer the case. It the circumstances, It

cannot be said that the Supreme Court, intended to lay down

any principle of law as such.

5.

In view of the circumstances as are appearing and having

stated that the applicant and her three daughters one is doctor

and other two are taking education are residing at Aurangabad,

plus the threat perceived at Beed by the applicant, will have to

{4}

mca92-15

be taken into account. It does not appear that any serious

prejudice would be caused to the respondent if he attends

proceedings at Aurangabad, as he is sta