ALKA PRASANNA GOSAVI Vs. PRASANNA PARVANATH GOSAVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Advocates for the parties. Perused the records. Since common questions of law and facts arise in both the applications, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) FROM the facts disclosed in the Misc. Civil Application No. 90 of 2002, which are not controverted by the respondent, the petitioner has made out a case for transfer of the proceedings from the Nasik Court to the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai. As fairly conceded by the learned Advocate for the applicant, consequent to such transfer the respondent would certainly be entitled for travelling expenses bearing in mind the decision of the Apex Court in Shiv Kumari Devendra Ojha v. Ramajor Shitla Prasad Ojha and others, (1997) 2 SCC 452.

(3.) IT is also pertinent to note that the proceedings initiated by the applicant in misc. Civil Application No. 90 of 2002 in the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai were prior in time to the proceedings initiated by the respondent at Nasik. Being so, considering the provisions of Section 21 of the Hindu Marriage Act, and since the basic issue in both the proceedings being similar, both the proceedings are required to be heard by the same Court and to be disposed of simultaneously.