Mrs Seema Santosh Mandale v. Mr Santosh Bankat Mandale

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 1048 MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION NO.172 OF 2023 MRS SEEMA SANTOSH MANDALE

VERSUS

MR SANTOSH BANKAT MANDALE ...

Advocate for Applicants : Mr. Andhare Mrunal Sunil Advocate for Respondent : Mr. Mithun Bhaskar h/f. Mr. Bhise Bhausaheb B.

...

CORAM

: SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.

DATE : 01st DECEMBER, 2023 PER COURT :

1.

Heard the learned counsel for both the sides finally. 2.

By way of this application, the applicant is seeking transfer of the proceedings of dissolution of marriage filed before the Family Court at Latur to Family Court at Pune.

3.

The learned counsel for the applicant submits that it is not possible for the applicant to attend the proceedings by travelling from Pune to Latur.

4.

The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the application is frivolous. The applicant is able bodied person and is in a position to attend the proceedings at Latur. She has suppressed material facts. The conduct of the applicant was objectionable. No discretion can be exercised in her favour.

5.

I have considered rival submissions. I record following findings :

i.

It is inconvenient for the applicant to travel and attend the proceedings at Latur.

ii.

She has no source of income and she is staying with her parent. iii.

Her sufferings and hardship are apparent.

iv.

There is nothing on record to show that the respondent is unable to attend the proceedings by travelling from Latur to Pune. v.

The applicant has initiated proceedings at Pune against the respondent.

6.

A useful reference can be made to the law laid down by the Supreme Court and this Court in the following matters : a) Sumita Singh Versus Kumar Sanjay, 2002 AIR (SC) 396 ; b) Soma Choudhury Versus Gourab Choudhaury, (2004) 13 Supreme Court Cases 462 ;

c) Sangamitra Ramakant Royalwar Versus Ramakant Gangaram Royalwar, 2009 (1) Mh.L.J. 303 ;

d) Anita Balkrishna Barge Versus Balkrishna Sopan Barge, 2011 (1) Mh.L.J. 518 ;

e) Mahadevi Gopal Mehetre Versus Gopal Prabhakar Mehetre, 2016

(4) All.M.R. 599 ;

f) Vaishali Shridhar Jagtap Versus Shridhar Vishwanath Jagtap, 2016 AIR (SC) 3584 ;

g) Pooja Rohan Jadhav Vresus Rohan Ramesh Jadhav, order passed by High Court, Bench at Aurangabad in MCA No. 171 of 2018 ; h) Ashwini Kailas Patil Versus Shivajirao Anandrao Gaekwar, order passed by High Court, Bench at Aurangabad In MCA No. 46 of 2020.

7.

For the reasons stated above, I pass following order :

ORDER

i.

The Miscellaneous Civil Application is allowed. ii.

The Divorce Petition bearing No. PA/279/2022 pending before the Family Court at Latur shall stand transferred to the Family Court at Pune.

iii.

An endeavour be made to decide the proceedings finally as expeditiously as possible.

iv.

The concern Court shall transmit the papers immediately.

v.

The parties to appear before the Family Court at Pune on 21st December, 2023.

vi.

All the proceedings pending at a place where the applicant is residing be preferably posted on same date. [ SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. ] Thakur-Chauhan/-