Ramesh Gajanan Rege v. Anjali Ramesh Rege And ANR.

10.wp6538_2015.doc Vidya Amin

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6538 OF 2015 Ramesh Gajanan Rege ... Petitioner Vs.

Anjali Ramesh Rege & Anr.

... Respondents Mr. B.M. Patwardhan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Abhijit Sarwate, Advocate for respondent nos. 1 and 2. CORAM: MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.

DATE : JULY 16, 2015 P.C.:

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, the matter is heard finally at the stage of admission.

2.

This Writ Petition is directed against the order dated 16th June, 2015 passed by the Principal Judge of the Family Court no. I, Pune thereby rejecting the Application of the petitioner filed for transfer of 6 cases from Court No. 3 to Court No. 1 under section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code. 2.

It is submitted that over all 6 cases are pending before Family Court No. 3 between the parties nearly for a period of 6 months. Some Applications were heard and decided by the Presiding Officer Smt. Sawant. The High Court has expedited the matters. The petitioner/husband has filed his examination-in-chief. His cross- 1 / 2

10.wp6538_2015.doc examination was from 10th June, 2010 and which is going on. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Presiding Officer Smt. Sawant is now appointed as Principal Judge of Family Court No. 1, Pune, therefore, as all these cases were partly heard by her, the petitioner wants these cases to be transferred to Court No. 1, i.e. before Principal Judge Smt.. Sawant. The learned counsel submitted that judicial proprietary requires, as the record is voluminous and new Judge will take time to read and understand the matter. These matters are to be transferred, heard and decided by the same Judge, who have earlier heard same matter. 3.

The learned counsel for the respondent opposed the petition. 4.

On perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Principal Judge, I do not find any illegality in the order. Hence, it does not require any interference. Writ Petition is dismissed. (MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) 2 / 2