Madhuri Vishal Panchal v. Vishal Devanand Panchal

(1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 254 OF 2016 Sau. Madhuri Vishal Panchal, age 24 years occupation housewife R/o C/o Madhukar Sutar, "Malti Arts", behind Vitthal Mandir, Dhayari Phata, Pune, District Pune ..AP PLICANT

VERSUS

Vishal s/o Devanand Panchal, age 26 years occupation business & Agri.

R/o Shastri Nagar, Purna Tal. Purna District Parbhani, at present Malegaon road, Taroda (Kd.), Nanded Tal. & Dist. Nanded.

...RESPONDENT Mr M. P. Tripathi, Advocate, for applicant.

Mr G. G. Kadam, holding for Shri V.D. Panchal, Adv. for respondent.

CORAM : N.W. SAMBRE, J.

DATE : 22nd June, 2017 ORAL ORDER By the present application, H.M.P. No. 6 of 2016 filed by the respondent/husband is sought to be transferred to the Family Court,

(2) Pune.

2.

Parties herein are married on February 23rd, 2015 at Pune. 3.

In view of matrimonial discord, the respondent/husband has initiated proceeding in the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.), Nanded, under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, for restitution of conjugal rights. 4.

The learned Counsel for the respondent/husband offers Rs. 2000/- towards travelling and other expenses, however, the said proposal is refused by the applicant on the ground that the proposal is unreasonable, since with an companion she will be required to travel from Pune to Nanded and will be required to stay at Nanded. As such, said proposal is rejected by the applicant. 5.

Adv. Shri Kadam would urge that it is more difficult for the respondent to travel to Pune because of adverse health condition of his father, who has trouble of kidney stone.

6.

The papers, which are placed on record show that both kidneys of father of respondent appear to be normal, however, his prostate is shown to be enlarged, for which there is appropriate

(3) remedial treatment available. As such, it cannot be considered to be a hardship to the non-applicant.

7.

In view of distance between Pune to Nanded, and the fact that applicant/wife will be required to travel alone, the comparative hardship to the applicant will be more. As such, considering the hardship and inconvenience which tilted more in favour of applicant, application stands allowed, in terms of prayer clause "B". (N.W. SAMBRE, J.) pjm