Samta Vikas Joglekar v. Vikas Sadanand Joglekar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 35 OF 2022 Samta Vikas Joglekar .. Applicant v/s.

Vikas Sadanand Joglekar .. Respondent ...

Ms. Yogini A. Ugale for the Applicant.

...

CORAM : KAMAL KHATA, J.

DATED : 23RD JUNE 2023.

P.C. :

1.

This Miscellaneous Civil Application is filed by the applicantwife under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 to transfer Hindu Marriage Petition for divorce filed by the husband from Family Court, Kolhapur to Family Court, Thane. 2.

The Applicant and Respondent married on 4th May 2008 at Navi Mumbai. On 21st July 2012 a son was born out of wedlock. On account of marital discord, and on being subjected to domestic violence by the Respondent and his mother, Applicant filed FIR at Nerul Police Station Navi Mumbai and thereafter Criminal Complaint No. 67/DV/2019 under the provision of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, before the Joint Magistrate First Class (JMFC) Navi Mumbai On account of continuation of the Digitally signed by SUMEDH NAMDEO SONAWANE Date:

2023.06.26 09:40:40 +0530 1/4 SUMEDH NAMDEO SONAWANE

domestic violence, the Applicant left for her parental home at Juinagar, Navi Mumbai. On the other hand, the Respondent filed a Marriage Petition before the Civil Judge Senior Division Kolhapur. 3.

The learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that the Applicant as well as the Respondent are residing at Navi Mumbai and the Respondent has deliberately and with a malafide intention to harass the Applicant filed the Marriage Petition at Kolhapur. The distance from Navi Mumbai to Kolhapur is 355 kms and would take around 12 to 13 hours to and fro. It is submitted that the Applicant is a housewife and has no source of income. Besides she has to take care of their 11 year old son. The Respondent though well placed has failed to support the Applicant financially. She would therefore have to suffer undue hardship and expense to attend the Court each day. In view of the above, she submitted that the transfer Application be allowed.

4.

None appeared for the Respondent though served. 5.

The law with respect to transfer of proceedings, particularly matrimonial disputes, is no longer res-integra. The ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of :- (i) Sumita Singh v. Kumar Sanjay reported in (2001) 10 SCC 41 : AIR 2002 SC 396, 2/4

(ii) Soma Choudhary v/s Gourab Choudhury (2004) 13 SCC 462, (iii) Rajani K Pardeshi v/s Kishor B Pardeshi (2005) 12 SCC 237, (iv) Anjali A Sadhwani v/s Ashok K Sadhwani AIR 2009 SC 1374 and (v) N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha reported in 2022 SCC OnLine 1199 is that the convenience of the woman that has to be looked into, while considering the transfer of a case from one Court to another.

6.

In the light of the law laid down in the aforecited decisions, the pleadings and materials on record and the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, particularly that the applicant will suffer undue hardship and expense to travel from Navi Mumbai to Kolhapur from time to time, I am inclined to exercise the discretionary powers of this Court under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure and allow the application for transfer. 7.

In view of the above I allow the transfer Application as under:

"Transfer the Hindu Marriage Petition No.107 of 2020 pending before Family Court at Kolhapur to Family Court, Thane and stay the proceedings pending transfer."

3/4

8.

The transfer may be effected within a period of 4 weeks and upon receipt of the papers and proceedings the Family Court, Thane shall give notice to the parties, preferably within 3 weeks, to proceed with their respective matters. 9.

All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order. (KAMAL KHATA, J.) 4/4