High Court
Legal Reasoning
(( 18 ))901Cri.appln583-24-Transfer of DVthere is no need to then transfer the cases but the Hon'bleSupreme Court has observed that "In this type of matter, theconvenience of the wife is to be preferred over the convenience ofthe husband”. In other cases decided by this Court as well as theHon’ble Supreme Court relied by the learned Advocate for theRespondent wife, similar view has been taken that the convenienceof the wife will have to be considered. Under such circumstance,one factor definitely will have to be highlighted that all the threematters will require to be brought before one Court in order toavoid any contrary decision and also to avoid multiplication ofproceedings. Therefore, when convenience of wife is required to beconsidered.”22.It is not in dispute that, marriage between the Applicantand the Non-Applicant solemnized on 23.12.2012 at Arjapur, Tq.Biloli Dist. Nanded as per the customs and rites prevailing in theirsociety. It is also not in dispute that, out of said matrimonialrelationship, they were blessed with a son namely Avishkar, on29.10.2014, and a daughter Aarohi, on 14.12.2018. It is a matter ofrecord that, on 10.01.2023, the Applicant instituted civil proceedingbearing H.M.P. No.22 of 2022 before the Civil Judge Senior Division,Biloli Dist. Nanded and prayed for the decree of dissolution ofmarriage under Section 13(1)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act. On04.10.2023, the Non-Applicant filed a Misc. Criminal Appln.P.W.D.V.A. No.27/2023 under Section 12, 17 to 23 of the Protection ofWomen from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Therefore, it prima facie 18 of 21 (( 19 ))901Cri.appln583-24-Transfer of DVappears that, the present Applicant instituted the proceeding underthe Hindu Marriage Act subsequent to filing of the D.V. proceeding bythe Non-Applicant. Therefore, case laws cited on behalf of theApplicant are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of thepresent case.23.On face of record it appears that, son of the presentspouse is School going boy aged about 11 years, whereasdaughter is aged about 6 years. The Non-Applicant has submittedthe Sonography Report and Medical Certificate issued by theMedical Officer certifying that, minor daughter Aarohi is sufferingfrom kidney related problem. The Applicant has not denied aboutdistance of 130 kms from parental village of the non-applicant tothe Court of learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Biloli, Dist.Nanded. It is not in dispute that, there is no direct travelingfacilities like, Train, Bus or Taxi facilities are available fromparental village of the non-applicant to travel at Biloli. Underthese circumstance, if the non-applicant is directed to attend theHMP proceeding before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division,at Biloli, Dist. Nanded in that event it certainly would causeinconvenience to the Non-applicant/wife to travel with her minor 19 of 21 (( 20 ))901Cri.appln583-24-Transfer of DVdaughter. Nonetheless, it is not at all feasible to the Non-Applicant to attend the Court proceeding and to return back onthe same day at her parental house after the Court hours. On thecontrary, the Applicant having vehicle facilities to travel at Laturand he can easily attend the said proceeding. Therefore,considering the case of Rahul cited (supra) on behalf of the Non-Applicant, it will be just and proper to withdraw the proceedingbearing H.M.P. No.22 of 2022 pending on the file of learned CivilJudge Senior Division, Biloli and transfer to the file of learnedCivil Judge, Senior Division, Latur, Dist. Latur. However, I do notfind any substantial grounds to transfer PWDVA No.27 of 2023from the file of learned JMFC Chakur to the file of learned ChiefJudicial Magistrate Biloli, Dist. Nanded. In view of abovediscussion, I proceed to pass the following order: :: ORDER ::(i)The Criminal Application No.583 of 2024 is herebydismissed.(ii)The Misc. Civil Application No.399 of 2023 filed bythe Non-Applicant/wife is hereby allowed. 20 of 21 (( 21 ))901Cri.appln583-24-Transfer of DV(iii)The H.M.P. No.22 of 2022 filed by theApplicant/husband pending on the file of learnedCivil Judge, Senior Division, Biloli, Dist. Nanded ishereby withdrawn and transferred to the file oflearned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Latur Dist. Latur.The Applicant/husband and Non-applicant/wife shallappear before the learned Civil Judge, SeniorDivision, Latur Dist. Latur on 17th March, 2025.(iv)Rule is made absolute in Misc. Civil ApplicationNo.399 of 2023. Rule is discharged in H.M.P. No.22of 2022. [ Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J. ] HRJadhav 21 of 21
Arguments
901Cri.appln583-24-Transfer of DV.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 583 OF 20241.Vyankatesh S/o Kaluram Madnure,Age- 46 years, Occu: Assistant Professor,R/o. Kundalwadi, Tq. Biloli, Dist. Nanded2.Anjanabai W/o Kaluram Madnure,Age- 74 years, Occu: Housewife,R/o. Kundalwadi, Tq. Biloli, Dist. Nanded ...APPLICANTS VERSUS1.Ayodhya W/o Vyankatesh Madnure,Age- 34 years, Occu; Agriculturist,R/o. Hanmant Jawalga, Tq. Chakur, Dist. Latur2.Aarohi D/o Vyankatesh Madnure,Age: 5 years, Occu: Student,Under Guardian of Mother Ayodhya W/o Vyankatesh Madnure Age: 34 years, Occu; Agriculturist,R/o. Hanmant Jawalga, Tq. Chakur, Dist. Latur ….RESPONDENTS ….Mr. P. P. Mandlik, Advocate for the ApplicantsMs. K. D. Bhande, Advocate for the Respondents …. WITH MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.399 OF 2023 Ayodhya W/o Vyankatesh Madnure,Age: 34 years, Occu: Household,R/o. Karhal, Post Kundalwadi,Tq. Biloli, Dist. Nanded 1 of 21 (( 2 ))901Cri.appln583-24-Transfer of DVAt present:R/o. C/o Dnyanoba Govindrao Mandurke,At post – Hanmant Jawalga,Tq. Chakur, Dist. Latur ...APPLICANT (Original Respondent)VERSUS Vyankatesh S/o Kaluram Madnure,Age: 40 years, Occu; Service,R/o. Karhal, Post Kundalwadi,At present:Kundalwadi, Tq. Biloli Dist. Nanded ….RESPONDENT (Orginal Petitioner).…Ms. K. D. Bhande, Advocate for the ApplicantMr. P. P. Mandlik, Advocate for the Sole RespondentCORAM:Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J.RESERVED ONPRONOUNCED ON:: 11.02.2025 25.02.2025 :: JUDGMENT ::1.At the outset it is submitted that, on 19.06.2024, thisCourt (Coram: Shivkumar Dige, J.) passed an order and referred thematrimonial dispute to the Mediator to ascertain possibility ofsettlement of the said dispute. Accordingly, the Mediator Mr. S. K.Kadam has submitted a mediation failure report. 2.On 18.12.2024, this Court passed the following order: 2 of 21 (( 3 ))901Cri.appln583-24-Transfer of DVORDER“1. In Criminal Application No.583 of 2024, the Applicanthusband prayed for transfer of Criminal Misc. ApplicationPW.D.VA No.27 of 2023 from the file of learned JudicialMagistrate First Class, Chatur to the file of learned ChiefJudicial Magistrate, Biloli District Nanded.2. In Misc. Civil Application No.399 of 2023, the non-applicant No.1 wife prayed for transfer of H.M.P No.22 of 2023filed by the (husband) from the file of learned Civil JudgeSenior Division, Biloli Dist. Nanded to the file of learned CivilJudge Senior Division, Latur.3. During the course of interaction both the learnedcounsels appearing for the respective parties have made astatement that the husband and wife are willing to settle thematrimonial dispute, however, prayed for intervention of theCourt for interaction/mediation/understanding to bothhusband and wife. Therefore, in order to ascertain thepossibility of settlement of the matrimonial dispute, theApplicant husband and the Non-Applicant wife both aredirected to remain present before this Court on 10.01.2025.”3.Again, On 10.01.2025, this Court passed the followingorder which reads as under:ORDER“1.As per order dated 19.06.2024, the Mediator hassubmitted its report dated 08.10.2024 stating that the Mediationhas failed. However, today the Applicant/Husband and theRespondent/Wife are personally present before this Court andthey have shown willingness to settle the dispute. TheApplicant/Husband had submitted his terms and conditions ofsettlement in writing. It is taken on record and marked 'X-1' foridentification. 3 of 21 (( 4 ))901Cri.appln583-24-Transfer of DV2. The Respondent/Wife has also given her terms andconditions in writing for settlement of the dispute. It is taken onrecord and marked "X-2' for identification.3. After discussing with both the parties in open Court, it hasbeen revealed that the Applicant/Husband had purchased theland ad measuring 2 and 1/2 Acre in the name ofRespondent/Wife. Smt. Ayodhya Venkatesh Madnure. However,the Applicant/Husband got transferred said land in the name ofhis son by executing a gift deed from the Respondent/Wife in thename of his son which shows dishonesty of theApplicant/Husband while keeping away the right of theRespondent/Wife. The Respondent/Wife further stated that sincelast three years i.e. with effect from 08.12.2022 she wascompelled to stay at her parental house and since then noamount of maintenance is paid to her. The Applicant/Husband isworking as a Professor in the Senior College and drawing salaryof more than Rs. 1.5 lakhs per month under the 7th PayCommission.4. Therefore, considering the ratio laid down in case ofKalyan Dey Chowdhury V/s. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy;(2017) 14 SC 200, the Respondent/Wife is entitled for 25% ofher husband'sincome towards maintenance. Therefore, an enquiry was madewith the Applicant about keeping some amount in the FixedDeposit in the name of Respondent/Wife. However, theApplicant/Husband sought time to ascertain the amount and tomake a statement on the next date.5.With consent of parties, stand over to 10.02.2025.”4.On 10.02.2025, both the parties personallyappeared before this Court. Therefore, inquiry was made withboth the parties about settlement of the dispute. The Non-applicant wife stated that, the Applicant shall keep some 4 of 21 (( 5 ))901Cri.appln583-24-Transfer of DVamount of arrears of maintenance in fixed deposit on her name.On inquiry, the Applicant/Husband stated that, he is ready andwilling to keep deposit of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh) infixed deposit in the name of Non-Applicant. The Non-applicantfiled reply affidavit with salary certificate of the Applicant forthe month of December 2024 and submitted calculation inrespect of arrears of maintenance amount i.e. salary per monthof Rs.1,79,000/- X 25% = 44,750/- per month. Therefore,arrears of maintenance for 36 X Rs. 44,750/- = Rs.16,11,000/-(Rupees Sixteen Lakh Eleven Thousand). Therefore, inquirywas made with the Applicant about keeping the said amount infixed deposit in the name of Non-Applicant with theNationalized Bank, but the Applicant denied said proposal.Therefore, this Court arrived at a conclusion that the parties arenot willing to settle the dispute, hence, both the parties arecalled upon to argue the matter on merit. 5.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consentof both the parties, heard finally at the stage of admission. 5 of 21 (( 6 ))901Cri.appln583-24-Transfer of DV6.In Criminal Application No.583 of 2024, theApplicant/Husband prayed for transfer of proceedingsi.e.,Criminal Misc. Application PWDVA No. 27 of 2023 filed bythe Non-Applicant / wife to the file of learned Chief JudicialMagistrate, Biloli, Dist. Nanded from the file of Learned JudicialMagistrate First Class, Chakur Dist. Latur. 7.In Civil Misc. Application No.399 of 2023, theApplicant/Wife prayed for transfer of H.M.P No.22 of 2022 filedby the Applicant / husband to the file of learned Civil Judge,Senior Division, Latur, Dist. Latur from the file of learned CivilJudge, Senior Division, Biloli, Dist. Nanded. 8.Needless to say that, the Non-applicant/wife filed aCriminal Misc. Appln. P.W.D.V.A. No.27 of 2023 under Section12, 17 to 23 of the Protection of Women from DomesticViolence Act, 2005 and set out the following prayers:“A) That, the proceedings of Criminal MiscellaneousApplication P.W.D.V.A. No.27/2023 pending before LearnedJudicial Magistrate First Class, Chakur, District Latur maykindly be transferred to the Learned Chief JudicialMagistrate, Biloli, District Nanded. 6 of 21 (( 7 ))901Cri.appln583-24-Transfer of DVB) Pending hearing and the final disposal of the presentCriminal Application, further proceedings in CriminalMiscellaneous Application P.W.D.V.A. No.27/2023 pendingbefore Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chakur,District l.atur may kindly be stayed.C) Ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause 'B' may kindlybe granted.D) Pass such other orders which are necessary in the factsand circumstances of the case in favour of the applicants.”9.It is a matter of record that, the Applicant/husbandhas filed H.M.P. No.22/2023 before the Civil Judge SeniorDivision Biloli and prayed as under: “A)This Misc. Civil Application may kindly be allowed.B)The Hindu Marriage petition No.22/2022 pendingbefore the Court of learned Civil Judge, S.D.Biloli, Dist.Nanded may kindly be transferred to the Court of Ld. CivilJudge, S.D.Latur, Dist. Latur.C)Pending hearing and final disposal of this Misc. CivilApplication, the further proceeding in Hindu MarriagePetition No.22/2022 pending before the Court of Ld. CivilJudge S.D. Biloli, Dist. Nanded, may kindly be stayed. D)Ad-interim relief in terms of prayer Clause “C” maybe granted.E)Any other suitable and equitable relief may kindly begranted in favour of Applicant.”10.Since the Applicant/husband filed CriminalApplication No.583 of 2024 and prayed for transfer of criminalproceeding P.W.D.V.A. No.27/2023 pending on the file of 7 of 21 (( 8 ))901Cri.appln583-24-Transfer of DVlearned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chakur, Dist. Latur, to thefile of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Biloli Dist. Nanded. 11.Section 407 of Cr.P.C.,provides as under:Section 407: Power of High Court to transfer cases and appeals-(1) whenever it is made to appear to the High Court-a)that a fair and impartial inquiry or trial cannot be held in any Criminal Court subordinate thereto, or (b) that some question of law of unusual difficulty is likely to arise; or(c) that an order under this section is required by any provision of this Code, or will tend to the general convenience of the parties or witnesses, or is expedient for the ends of justice,it may order-(i) that any offence be inquired into or tried by any Court not qualified under sections 177 to 185 (both inclusive), but in other respects competent to inquire into or try such offence;(ii) that any particular case or appeal, or class of cases or appeals, be transferred from a Criminal Court subordinate to its authority to any other such Criminal Court of equal or superior jurisdiction;(iii) that any particular case be committed for trial to a Court of Session; or(iv) that any particular case or appeal be transferred toand tried before itself.(2)The High Court may act either on the report of thelower Court, or on the application of a partyinterested, or on its own initiative:Provided that no application shall lie to the HighCourt for transferring a case from one Criminal Courtto another Criminal Court in the same sessions 8 of 21 (( 9 ))901Cri.appln583-24-Transfer of DVdivision, unless an application for such transfer hasbeen made to the Sessions Judge and rejected by him.(3)Every application for an order under sub-section (1)shall be made by motion, which shall, except whenthe applicant is the Advocate-General of the State, besupported by affidavit or affirmation.(4)When such application is made by an accused person,the High Court may direct him to execute a bond,with or without sureties, for the payment of anycompensation which the High Court may award undersub-section (7).(5)Every accused person making such application shallgive to the Public Prosecutor notice in writing of theapplication, together with a copy of the grounds onwhich it is made; and no order shall be made on themerits of the application unless at least twenty-fourhours have elapsed between the giving of such noticeand the hearing of the application.(6)Where the application is for the transfer of a case orappeal from any subordinate Court, the High Courtmay, if it is satisfied that it is necessary so to do in theinterests of justice, order that, pending the disposal ofthe application, the proceedings in the subordinateCourt shall be stayed, on such terms as the High Courtmay think fit to impose:Provided that such stay shall not affect thesubordinate Court's power of remand under section309.(7)Where an application for an order under sub-section(1) is dismissed, the High Court may, if it is s ofopinion that the application was frivolous orvexatious, order the applicant to pay by way ofcompensation to any person who has opposed theapplication such sum not exceeding one thousandrupees as it may consider proper in the circumstancesof the case. 9 of 21 (( 10 ))901Cri.appln583-24-Transfer of DV(8)When the High Court orders under sub-section (1)that a case be transferred from any Court for trialbefore itself, it shall observe in such trial the sameprocedure which that Court would have observed ifthe case had not been so transferred.(9)Nothing in this section shall be deemed to affect anyorder of Government under section 197.12.Vice versa, in Misc. Civil Appln. No.399 of 2023, theApplicant/wife prayed for transfer of H.M.P. No.22 of 2022 fromthe file of learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Biloli Dist. Nandedto the file of learned Civil Judge Senior Divisions, Latur Dist.Latur, therefore, it would be just and proper to reproduce Section24 of C.P.C. which reads as under: Section 24- General power of transfer and withdrawal“(1) On the application of any of the parties and after noticeto the parties and after hearing such of them as desired to beheard, or of its own motion without such notice, the HighCourt or the District Court may at any stage.(a) transfer any suit, appeal or other proceeding pendingbefore it for trial or disposal to any Court subordinate to itand competent to try or dispose of the same, or(b) withdraw any suit, appeal or other proceeding pending inany Court subordinate to it, and(i) try or dispose of the same; or(ii) transfer the same for trial or disposal to any Courtsubordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same;or(iii) re-transfer the same for trial or disposal to the Court fromwhich it was withdrawn. 10 of 21 (( 11 ))901Cri.appln583-24-Transfer of DV(2) Where any suit or proceeding has been transferred orwithdrawn under sub-section (1), the Court which [isthereafter to try or dispose of such suit or proceeding] may,subject to any special directions in the case of an order oftransfer, either retry it or proceed from the point at which itwas transferred or withdrawn.(3) For the purposes of this section,(a) Courts of Additional and Assistant Judges shall be deemedto be subordinate to the District Court;(b) proceeding includes a proceeding for the execution of adecree or order].(4) The Court trying any suit transferred or withdrawn underthis section from a Court of Small Causes shall, for thepurposes of such suit, be deemed to be a Court of SmallCauses.”13.The learned counsel for the Applicant canvassedthat, the Applicant has already filed his evidence affidavit inH.M.P. No.22 of 2022. However, on 20.12.2023 this Court(Coram: Shailesh P. Brahme, J.) passed an order in MiscellaneousCivil Application No.399 of 2023 and issued notice to the PresentApplicant and stayed further proceeding of H.M.P. No.22 of2022. It is further canvassed that, the Non-Applicant is avoidingto contest proceeding H.M.P. No.22 of 2022 and she has filed afalse case under the Domestic Violence Act. The Non-Applicantconsciously took plea in her written statement in H.M.P. No.22 of2022 that, she is ready and willing to resume co-habitation withthe Applicant No.1 but falsely instituted P.W.D.V.A. No.27 of 2023 11 of 21 (( 12 ))901Cri.appln583-24-Transfer of DVunder Section 12, 17 to 23 of the D. V. Act.14.It is further contended that, the Applicant is workingas a Assistant Professor in private college at Arjapur Tq. BiloliDist. Nanded. The Applicant’s working hours are 10:00 a.m. to16:00 p.m.. The mother of the Applicant No.1 is about 74 yearsold and she is suffering from various age related illnesses. MasterAvishkar, the Applicant’s son is staying with the Applicant,whereas, minor daughter Aarohi is staying with the Non-Applicant. Therefore, it would cause great hardship to theApplicants if the D.V. proceeding No. 27 of 2023 is continuedwith the learned JMFC, Chakur, Dist. Latur.15. The learned counsel for the Applicant furthercanvassed that, the Non-Applicant No.1 is residing with herparents, two brothers, two sister-in-laws at her parental houseChakur Dist. Latur, therefore, the Non-applicant would not faceany hardship to attend the Court at Biloli, whereas, the Applicantis residing at Kundalwadi village with his old aged mother andminor son. The Applicant is ready and willing to pay appropriate 12 of 21 (( 13 ))901Cri.appln583-24-Transfer of DVtraveling expenses to the Non-applicant. The Applicant isworking as a Professor in private College, therefore, it wouldcause hardship to the Applicant during his working hours toattend the D.V,. proceeding pending before the learned J.M.F.C.Chakur, hence, prayed for transfer of said proceeding.16.In support of these submissions, the learned counselfor the Applicant relied on the case of Ketaki Prathamesh Salekar@ Ketaki Ravindra Pawshe Vs. Prathamesh Ashok Salekar, 2020DGLS(Bom.)1206=2021 (2) All.M.R.66, wherein theApplicant/wife sought transfer of Petition No. A-2617 of 2019filed by the Respondent/husband at Family Court No.4 Mumbai(Bandra) to the Family Court Pune, Shivajinagar on ground that,the Applicant/wife was prosecuting her master degree in law andher child was small. Under these circumstances, the Co-ordinateBench of this Court observed in paragraph Nos. 5 and 6 asunder:“5. In light of the said circumstances, since the transfer isnot justified merely on the ground that the child is small, inthe application itself, the applicant has categorically made astatement that she is slaying with her parents so that theparents can take care of the child on a day's journey when the 13 of 21 (( 14 ))901Cri.appln583-24-Transfer of DVapplicant is required to travel from Mumbai to Pune to attendthe proceedings. Since, merely being a woman can give noright to seek transfer of proceedings but the transfer must beallowed when it aims to secure justice.6. The difficulty expressed by the applicant that she iswithout any income and travelling from Pune to Mumbai(Bandra) would incur expenses, the respondent is directed toreimburse the expenses for travel of the applicant on each dateof hearing on presenting the necessary details of the travel.”17.It further relied on the case of Harshada TejasNarute Vs. Tejas Mukund Narute, 2021 DGLS(Bom.) 2617,wherein it has been held in Paragraph Nos. 4 and 5 as under: “4. The power under Section 24 of the CP.C. has to be exercisedwith extreme caution and it is a settled position of law that itcannot be exercised at the drop of the hat. Convenience of theparty may be one of the factors to be taken into consideration,but it is not always the sole criteria.Here is an Applicant, who has instituted multipleproceedings in the Court at Nashik and for attending theproceedings, the Applicant will have to move to and fro onmultiple occasions. The Respondent/Husband has fled divorceproceedings before the Applicant/Wife has instituted variousproceedings and since it is informed that the proceedings filedby the Respondent/Husband in the Court at Pune are at thestage of evidence, the reasons set out by the Applicant seekingtransfer of proceedings, do not convince me that theproceedings need to be transferred. The Applicant, who onceupon a time serving in Pune, is fully capable to take up thetravel to attend the proceedings at Pune. However, at the sametime the inconvenience which she has expressed in seekingtransportation is also to be taken care of.5. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent submitsthat he is ready to share an amount of Rs. 2,500/- for attendingevery date in the Marriage Petition No. 550 of 2002, which is 14 of 21 (( 15 ))901Cri.appln583-24-Transfer of DVnow scheduled for evidence. The aforesaid amount wouldenable the Applicant to travel comfortably in a private cab andthe inconvenience can be minimised. The amount towardstransportation shall be deposited in advance by the counsel forthe Respondent in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division,Pune. In the wake of the aforesaid directions, I do not deem itexpedient to grant the application and it stands rejected.”18.It further relied on case of Anindita Das Vs. SrijitDas, 2005DGLS(SC) 659:2006(9) SCC 197, wherein inParagraph Nos. 3 to 7 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held thus: “3.Even otherwise, it must be seen that at one stage thisCourt was showing leniency to ladies. But since then it has beenfound that a large number of transfer petitions are filed bywomen taking advantage of the leniency shown by this Court.On an average at least 10 to 15 transfer petitions are on board ofeach court on each admission day. It is, therefore, clear thatleniency of this Court is being misused by the women.4. This Court is now required to consider each petition on itsmerit. In this case the ground taken by the wife is that she has asmall child and that there is nobody to keep her child. The child,in this case, is six years old and there are grandparents availableto look after the child. The respondent is willing to pay allexpenses for travel and stay of the petitioner and her companionfor every visit when the petitioner is required to attend the courtat Delhi. Thus, the ground that the petitioner has no source ofincome is adequately met.5. Except for stating that her health is not good, no particularsare given. On the ground that she is not able to come to Delhi toattend the court on a particular date, she can always apply forexemption and her application will undoubtedly be consideredon its merit. Hence, no ground for transfer has been made out6. Accordingly, we dismiss the transfer petition We, however, 15 of 21 (( 16 ))901Cri.appln583-24-Transfer of DVdirect that the respondent shall pay all travel and stay expensesof the petitioner and her companion for each and every occasionwhen she is required to attend the court at Delhi.7. The respondent shall send in advance to the petitioner, moneyfor a 2nd class AC train ticket for herself and a companion. Therespondent shall also pay stay expenses of the petitioner and hercompanion in a 3-star hotel. The trial court shall ensure that thepetitioner has been paid the travel expenses in advance and thatthe hotel expenses are paid to her on each and every occasionwhen she is required to attend the court at Delhi.”19.Per contra, the learned counsel for the Non-Applicantcanvassed in vehemence that, the Applicant has filed H.M.P. No.22 of2022 before the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Biloli with anulterior motive and prayed for decree of divorce. The Non-applicant,a young woman aged about 34 years unable to attend each and everycourt hearings at Biloli, Dist. Nanded along with her small daughter.There are no direct traveling facilities from parental village of theNon-Applicant to travel at Biloli, Dist. Nanded. However, theApplicant filed H.M.P., proceeding with malafide intention to causemental agony to the Non-applicant. Therefore, it is necessary totransfer H.M.P. to the file of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Latur, whichis convenient place to the Non-Applicant. 20.It is further canvassed on behalf of the Non-applicant 16 of 21 (( 17 ))901Cri.appln583-24-Transfer of DVthat, the Court of learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Biloli, Dist.Nanded is situated more than 130 kms from her parental villageHanmant Jawlga, Tq. Chakur, Dist. Latur. There is no direct Train,Bus or Taxi facilities are available to travel at Biloli from parentalvillage of the non-applicant. Therefore, it is very difficult to the non-applicant to travel 130 KM with her minor daughter. Therefore, it isnot feasible to the Non-Applicant to attend the Court proceeding andreturn back on the same day at her parental house. But the Applicantis healthy, having vehicle facilities to travel and can easily attend theCourt proceeding at Latur.21.In support of these submissions, the learned counsel forthe Non-applicant relied on Rahul S/o sGautam Athwale Vs. RuchiraW/o Rahul Athwale LAWS(BOM)-2022-6-73, wherein the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court considered various cases cited thereinand held in Paragraph No.10 as under:“10.In the catena of Judgments, Hon'ble Supreme Courthas considered the convenience of the wife in case of transfer ofpetitions on the civil side. Here not only relief under the Civil Acthas been claimed by the applicant husband as well as therespondent wife but the respondent wife is also claiming reliefunder Code of Criminal Procedure, though it is quasi civil innature. In Rajani Kishor Pardeshi (supra) similar ofer was made bythe husband that he will pay the travel expenses of the wife and 17 of 21