PRAMELA MADHAV YESHWANT Vs. MADHAV RADHAKISHAN YESHWANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel appearing for the applicant and learned Counsel appearing for non-applicant/respondent. Learned Counsel appearing for applicant invited my attention to the grounds taken by the applicant in the application and also relied upon following judgments of High Courts as well as Supreme Court in the cases of Smt. Nanda Kishori v. S.B. Shivaprakash, 1993 AIR(Kar) 87, Anisha Sanjay Hinduja v. Sanjay Shrichand Hinduja and Guda Vijayalakshmi v. Guda Ramchandra Sekhara Sastry, 1982 AIR(SC) 1143.

(2.) Learned Advocate for the non-applicant submits that so far as incurring of expenses of travelling from Aurangabad to Pandharpur is concerned, Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act takes care of that. He also submitted that earlier H.M.P. 116 of 2007 was filed in the Court at Shrirampur, however, present applicant has objected on the point of jurisdiction. Therefore, the non-applicant was contained to file proceedings at Pandharpur. Again the applicant has raised objection.

(3.) After hearing Counsels for the applicant and non-applicant I feel it appropriate to grant rule. Hence, Rule.