Madhvi Rakesh Patil v. Rakesh Jangonda Patil

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 539 OF 2024 Madhvi Rakesh Patil ..Applicant

Versus

Rakesh Jangonda Patil ..Respondent ANAND SUDHAKAR SUDAME Ms. Seema S. Dighe h/f. Mr. Priyal G. Sarda, Advocates, for the Applicant CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, J.

by ANAND SUDHAKAR SUDAME Date: 2025.10.16 18:26:13 +0530 DATE : 14.10.2025 P. C.

1.

This is a transfer Application filed by the Applicant, wife of the Respondent seeking transfer of the Marriage Petition No. F/355/2023 from the Family Court, Sangli to the Family Court, Pune. 2.

Office remark shows that the Respondent has been duly served. On 29.09.2025, when the matter was called out, none appeared for the Respondent. Therefore, in order to give one more opportunity to the Respondent to appear in the present proceeding, the matter was adjourned to today. Even today none appears for the Respondent when the matter is called out.

3.

It is submitted that the Applicant - wife is working in a clinic as as hospital manager and she is staying along with her three years old

son. She has filed D. V. proceedings before the learned JMFC, PimpriChinchwad, District - Pune. The husband has filed the proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights at Sangli. The husband is an architect and has his own business. The Restitution Petition is at a preliminary stage. The wife has not filed written statement in the said Restitution Petition as of today. The distance between Pune and Sangli is around 230 Km. Hence, it would be difficult for the Applicant - wife to attend the Court proceedings at Sangli and return back on the same day. 4.

The Supreme Court in the case of N. C. V. Aishwarya vs. A. S. Sarvana Karthik Sha, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1199 has held that while considering transfer proceedings, convenience of the wife has to be taken into consideration. Paragraph 9 of the said Judgment reads as under :- "9.

The cardinal principle for exercise of power under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure is that the ends of justice should demand transfer of the suit, appeal or other proceeding. In matrimonial matters, wherever Courts are called upon to consider the plea of transfer, the Courts have to take into consideration the economic soundness of both the parties, the social strata of the spouses and their behavioural pattern, their standard of life prior to the marriage and subsequent thereto and the circumstances of both the parties in eking out their livelihood and under whose protective umbrella they are seeking their sustenance to life. Given the prevailing socio-economic paradigm in the Indian society, generally, it is the wife's convenience which must be looked at while considering

transfer."

(emphasis supplied) 5.

In the case of Jyoti Abhijeet Kandage vs. Abhijeet Narayan Kandage (Misc. Civil Application No.239 of 2024), I have considered all the provisions as far as transfer proceedings are concerned. In paragraph No.15 and 15.2, it has been held as under :- "15) Considering the Sections of D.V. Act, and the Judgments discussed in the above paragraphs, it becomes evident that Family Court has power to decide complaint which seeks relief under Sections 18 to 22 of the D.V. Act. Hence in my opinion, transfer of proceedings from Magistrate's Court to Family Court pertaining to relief claimed under Section 18 to 22 of the D.V. Act can be allowed. However, if a transfer proceedings is not a bonafide one, then on merits such a transfer on case to case basis can be rejected.

One has to also keep in mind the stage of the proceedings of which transfer is sought. 15.2) So also, one has to also keep in mind who is coming to the court for the transfer of the proceedings, whether it is the Wife or the Husband or any other party. Since a choice is given to the aggrieved person under the D.V. Act to choose the forum for reliefs sought under Section 18 to 22, (i.e.) before the Magistrate under Section 12 or to the civil court, family court or criminal court under Section 26, such transfer if sought by a Wife, considering the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of N.C.V. Aishwarya (supra) will have to be considered favourably." 6.

Considering the law laid down in the case of N. C. V. Aishwarya (Supra) and the view taken by me in the above Judgment of Jyoti Abhijeet Kandage(Supra) and the facts of the present case, I am

convinced that the Application deserves to be allowed. 7.

The Miscellaneous Civil Application stands allowed in terms of prayer clause (a).

8.

The learned Judge, Family Court, Sangli is hereby directed to transfer the Marriage Petition No. F/355/2023 to the Family Court, Pune within a period of four weeks from today. The hearing of the aforesaid proceedings is expedited.

(RAJESH S. PATIL, J.)