Shital Rahul Bendre v. Rahul Bharat Bendre

( 1 )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 963 MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 29 OF 2025 Shital Rahul Bendre

VERSUS

Rahul Bharat Bendre ...

Mr. A. R. Muley h/f Mr. Mahesh Kale, Advocate for Applicant. Mr. Sudheer R. Zambare, Advocate for Respondent. CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT, J.

DATE : 15th OCTOBER 2025.

PC :- 1.

Heard the learned Advocates for the parties.

2.

This application is filed by the wife seeking transfer of matrimonial proceeding bearing Petition No. A-1735 of 2024, from the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Pune to the Court of learned Judge, Family Court at Beed. The proceeding is filed by the respondent husband seeking divorce under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act. 3.

The learned Advocate for the applicant wife submits that the applicant is presently residing with her parents at Beed. The distance

( 2 ) between two places is around 200 k.m. She thus finds it difficult to attend the Court at Pune, as there is no one to accompany her to travel to Pune. Two proceedings are already going on in the Court at Beed i.e. one under Section 498-A of IPC and another proceeding is filed under Domestic Violence Act. The husband has already appeared in the said proceeding at Beed. He thus prays for allowing the application. 4.

The learned Advocate for the respondent vehemently opposed the application.

5.

Considering that two proceedings are already pending in the Court at Beed and the husband has already appeared in those proceedings, this Court finds that it would be in the interest of justice to allow the application. Hence, the following order:

ORDER

(i) Misc. Civil Application stands allowed.

(ii) The proceedings of Petition No. A-1735 of 2024, pending before the learned Judge, Family Court, Pune to the Court of learned Judge, Family Court at Beed.

( 3 ) (iii) After transfer of the proceeding, the applicant shall not seek unnecessary adjournments. In case the Trial Court finds that the adjournments are unnecessarily sought, the Trial Court may deal with such application, so as to compensate the respondent-husband, if he personally remains present.

(iv) Whenever request is made by the respondent-husband seeking permission to appear through video conferencing, the same shall be considered liberally by the trial Court.

(v) With this, Misc. Civil Application stands disposed off. [KISHORE C. SANT, J.]