RANJANA RAVINDRA GAONKAR Vs. RAVINDRA PARSHURAM GAONKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE was issued in this matter on 15-10-1997. This is an application by the wife for transfer of proceedings pending before the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior division at Sindhudurg in a petition filed under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 to the Family Court at Bombay.

(2.) IT is the case of the applicant that she is alone and helpless and has no one to support her. She is presently residing with her parents at her parents' house at vasai Road, Dist. Thane. It is her further case that when she had come to her parental house on account of reasons narrated in the application she was shocked to receive the summons in H. M. P. No. 16 of 1997 filed by the respondent seeking a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. It is the contention of the applicant that the respondent is residing at Tardeo, Bombay and the applicant is residing at Vasai Road which is close to Bombay. It is the contention of the applicant that if the matter is transferred to Bombay, the applicant will be in a position to avoid travelling all the way to Sindhudurg and spending substantial amount in the process. It is further contended that the proceedings are initiated at Sindhudurg with the intention of harassing, inconveniencing and pressurising the applicant as the applicant has no source of income of her own and has no means to defend the proceedings in the Court at Sindhudurg. She has further averred that her father is no more and that she and her widowed mother are dependent on her brother for the survival. She is not in a position to spend for lodging boarding and travelling and further that she has no relatives at Sindhudurg. On the contrary she has contended that the respondent is running a business in the name of Said Pest Control at the address mentioned in ground (iv) of para. 4 of the transfer application. For the aforesaid reasons she prayed for transfer. She relies on the visiting cards of the respondents and various other correspondence in, support of her contention that the respondent was residing in Bombay.

(3.) THE respondent has denied the contentions. It is his contention that the applicant is not residing at Vasai. It is further denied that the visiting card belongs to him and that he has no room in Mumbai. The letters at Exhibit-A in affidavit in-rejoinder dated 1-12-1997 have also been continued. He has denied various other documents relied on by the applicant. It is his contention that the Applicant is a permanent resident of village Ghodge and her mother is also residing there. It is his further contention that only the brothers of the applicant have come to Mumbai and they are employed at Mumbai. It is his further case that he is earning his livelihood by cultivating his agricultural land at his village and whenever he is free he comes to Mumbai for labour work. There are some other contentions. The respondent has relied on some documents to show that he is not residing at Mumbai.