ARUNDHATI DEVENDRA PATHAK Vs. DEVENDRA NITEEN PHATAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave to amend. Amendment to be carried out forthwith.

(2.) The application is filed by the wife for transfer of Marriage Petition No. 1933 of 2022 filed by husband at learned Family Court, Pune to learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panvel. The transfer is sought on the ground that it is inconvenient for the wife to travel to Pune to attend the hearing on each and every date. Apart from the said ground, additionally it is stated that she is dependent on her parents for the purpose of income. It is stated that she is not acquainted with any lawyer in Pune.

(3.) The husband has filed reply and contested the application stating that there is suppression of material of facts. It is stated that while applicant was working she used to travel to Pune. It would be inconvenient for the husband to travel to Panvel, as he needs to take care of his mother. She had already travelled to various states in India and to Malaysia. Therefore, she can very well travel to Pune. In support of his submission he relied on the Judgment of Apex Court in the Case of Anindita Das Vs. Srijit Das reported in (2006) 9 SCC 197, Gargi Konar Vs. Jagjeet Singh reported in (2005) 11 SCC 446, Preeti Sharma Vs. Manjit Sharma reported in (2005) 11 SCC 535 and Anu Kaul Vs. Rajeev Kaul reported in (2009) 13 SCC 209.