Research › Browse › Judgment

Supreme Court of India · body

2004 DIGILAW 930 (SC)

SHEELA ALIAS ANUPAMA MAHESH KHOLE v. MAHESH SURESH KHOLE

2004-08-09

B.N.SRIKRISHNA, SHIVARAJ V.PATIL

body2004
ORDER 1. THIS PETITION, SEEKING TRANSFER OF PA NO. 819 OF 2003 TITLED AS MAHESH SURESH KHOLE V. SHEELA FROM THE FAMILY COURT AT PUNE TO THE FAMILY COURT AT MYSORE, IS FILED BY THE WIFE CONTENDING THAT SHE IS A STUDENT STUDYING AT MYSORE AND IT IS DIFFICULT FOR HER TO TRAVEL FROM MYSORE TO PUNE TO ATTEND THE CASE FILED AGAINST HER BY THE RESPONDENT HUSBAND. THE PETITIONER HAS ALSO STATED IN HER PETITION THAT THE RESPONDENT IS RUNNING TWO RESTAURANTS AT PUNE AND IS FINANCIALLY SOUND. 2. DESPITE SERVICE OF NOTICE OF THIS PETITION, THE RESPONDENT IS NOT REPRESENTED. HOWEVER, HE HAS SENT OBJECTIONS TO THIS PETITION BY POST WITH A REQUEST TO CONSIDER THEM, PLEADING THAT FINANCIALLY HE IS NOT SOUND AND HE IS NOT RUNNING ANY RESTAURANT. 3. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER STATES THAT THE PETITIONER HAS FILED A PETITION FOR RESTITUTION OF CONJUGAL RIGHTS AT MYSORE IN MC NO. 220 OF 2003, WHICH IS STILL PENDING ADJUDICATION. IT IS THEREAFTER THAT THE RESPONDENT FILED A PETITION AT PUNE SEEKING DIVORCE. 4. HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE THINK IT IS JUST AND APPROPRIATE TO ORDER TRANSFER OF PA NO. 819 OF 2003 TITLED AS MAHESH SURESH KHOLE V. SHEELA FROM THE FAMILY COURT AT PUNE TO THE FAMILY COURT AT MYSORE. 5. THE TRANSFER PETITION IS, ACCORDINGLY, ALLOWED. NO COSTS.