Mrs. Supriya W/O Kamlesh Meshram ... vs Kamlesh S/O Bhimdev Meshram
2017 Latest Caselaw 3341 Bom

    mca36.17.odt                                                                                                         1/3



                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                            NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

                                         MCA (Tr) No. 36 of 2017 
                                            Supriya v. Kamlesh
                   
                                       
                                                           
                                                                               
                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                    
Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram,
appearances, Court's orders of directions                                      Court's or Judge's orders.
and Registrar's Orders.
                                       Shri V. R. Borkar, Advocate for applicant 
                                       Ms Neena R. Tembhurne, Advocate for respondent

                                  Coram:           S. B. Shukre,  J 
                                  Date   :         19th June  2017


                                                      Heard.       Usually,   such   applications   have
                                  resulted   in   order   favouring   the   applicant.     This

application, however, seems to be an exceptional to the general trend.

According to the applicant, she comes from a poor family and, therefore, is not able to garner sufficient resources for undertaking journey from Gondia to Nagpur and only a general statement in this regard has been made. In any case, the applicant, if she applies for, can possibly get whatever expenses she would incur for undertaking such journey from the respondent-husband. Therefore, lack of funds by itself cannot be sufficient ground for allowing such application.

The next ground taken by the applicant is that the distance between Gondia to Nagpur is about 154 kms and it is a 3-hour journey by road and, therefore, it is inconvenient for the applicant who is a

mca36.17.odt 2/3

lady. As a general proposation that a 3-hour journey by road for a lady is inconvenient, cannot be accepted. A lady who faces inconvenience in undertaking such a journey, must come out with a specific case of the inconvenience. She must state the reasons as to why the journey would be inconvenient for her. No Court can draw a presumption nor guess such traveling would entail physical hardship for every lady. In fact, now-a-days, general condition of roads is good. Gondia and Nagpur are the places having railway stations and well connected by several trains. In such a situation, it would be necessary for a lady applicant taking the ground of inconvenience of journey to offer proper justification so that the Court can exercise its discretion in the matter by balancing the interest of both the parties. Unfortunately, the applicant has not given a single reason as to why she finds it inconvenient to undertake such journey.

On the other hand, respondent has given reason for the same. According to him, if he is made to travel from Nagpur to Gondia, he would have great physical discomfort, for he is suffering from systemic hypertension which is certified by a specialist consultant. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that this certificate which is at page 21, cannot be relied upon, because it does not mention the name of doctor and also lacks in necessary details. It is true that name of the doctor is not mentioned in the

mca36.17.odt 3/3

certificate. But, the certificate appears to be issued by a specialist consultant of Venus Critical Care Hospital, Nagpur. Respondent has also taken a specific ground of his ailment of systemic hypertension in order to oppose this application. Such is not, however, the case with the applicant who has not even cared to give any reason for her alleged inconvenience.

Therefore, I am of the view that the balance of convenience in this case tilts in favour of the respondent instead of applicant. Application is rejected.

JUDGE joshi