← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/3721/2021dismissed

Smt. Supriya W/O Vijay Nagle (Nee Supriya D/O Mahadeoprasad Meshram) v. Vijay S/O Gulabrao Nagle

2021-09-27Hon'Ble Shri Justice Sunil B. Shukre,Hon'Ble Shri Justice Anil S. Kilor2 pages

1 W.P.No.3721.2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3721 OF 2021 Smt. Supriya W/o Vijay Nagle (nee Supriya D/o Mahadeoprasad Meshram), ..VS..

Shri Vijay S/o Gulabrao Nagle --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court'

s or Judge'

s orders appearances, Court'

s orders of directions and Registrar'

s orders --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Vishal Anand, Advocate for petitioner.

CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND ANIL S. KILOR, JJ.

DATED : 27.09.2021 1.

Heard.

2.

By this petition, inter-state transfer of proceedings have been sought. Such power is not conferred upon this Court for two reasons. Firstly, provisions made in Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India, on which reliance has been made by learned counsel for the petitioner, do not empower this Court to transfer proceedings from one State to another inasmuch as cause of action to transfer the proceedings pending before a Court situated in a different State to which the writ of this Court does not extend would arise only in such other State and not in the present State. Secondly, according to the Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the remedy is available before Hon'ble Supreme Court.

2 W.P.No.3721.2021 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon Section 21A(2) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. In our considered view, the power conferred under Sub-section 2 of Section 21A of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, if any, would have to be exercised by the Court, in accordance with law, before whom the subsequent proceedings are filed.

4.

The petition, therefore, stands dismissed. No costs. JUDGE JUDGE Kirtak