Bombay High Court
Mrs. Shubhangi W/O Dnyaneshwar ... vs Dnyaneshwar Namdev Sagar on 30 March, 2017
Bench: S.P. Deshmukh
69.2016MCA.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 69 OF 2016
Mrs. Shubhangi w/o Dnyaneshwar Sagar
Age-25 years, Occ: Household,
R/o. Madaz Tq. Omarga, Dist. Osmanabad ...Applicant
Versus
Dnyaneshwar Namdev Sagar
Age-30 years, Occ: Business,
R/o. Room No. 165/2/4, Mahatmaphule Chawl,
Sagbag, Marole, Andhri East,
Mumbai-400059. ...Respondent
...
Mr. B. R. Kedar, Advocate for applicant
Mrs. Sukhsagar Singh, Advocate for respondent
...
[CORAM: SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.]
Date: 30th March, 2017
ORAL JUDGMENT:
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
by consent of parties.
2. Applicant is wife of respondent and is before this
court seeking transfer of proceedings bearing Marriage
Petition No. A-2197/2015, initiated by respondent for
divorce in family court at Bandra, Mumbai to a competent
69.2016MCA.odt
court at Omerga, District Osmanabad.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that
applicant and respondent married in May, 2014 and after
marriage she had been staying with respondent in Mumbai.
Respondent for quite a few days treated her well. After
lapse of sometime, respondent and her in-laws changed
their attitude and started harassing and ill treating her.
Around May, 2015, she had been driven out of matrimonial
house from Mumbai. She, as such, was required to return to
her parents in rural place at Madaz, Taluka Omerga, District
Osmanabad which is about 12 kilometer away from
Omerga.
4. Learned counsel further submits that subsequently,
around July, 2015, respondent had initiated proceedings for
divorce. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that it is
difficult for the applicant to travel to attend to the
proceedings at Bandra, Mumbai from Madaz, Omerga.
Learned counsel further refers to distance from Madaz,
Omerga to Bandra, Mumbai to be about 500 kilometer.
Applicant has no source of income, she is dependent on
her parents for her livelihood. Their economic condition is
not well. No maintenance is paid to her by respondent. He
69.2016MCA.odt
further submits that though the respondent resides at
Mumbai, yet, him and other members of their family hail
from Osmanabad district. He further purports in order to
cover otherside arguments over the health issues being
raised in affidavit-in-reply of respondent, documents
annexed to the reply depict that it is not such a case
wherein respondent would not be able to travel from
Mumbai to Omerga. He further points out and submits
that, in any case, it is the case of the respondent that
respondent is a driver by occupation and works seasonally
in industry, constructions etc.
5. Learned counsel for applicant submits, although it is
being contended on behalf of the respondent that it would
be convenient for applicant in Greater Bombay, yet, it is
difficult to have arrangements for applicant, as the
economic condition of her parents is very weak and they
are not able to bear expenses of traveling. Learned counsel
further submits that, in any case, to and fro traveling
expenses i.e. from Omerga-Bandra, Mumbai would not be
less than Rs.3000/- on each trip.
6. He submits that overall legal position is that it is
convenience of wife which should be given regard to. He
69.2016MCA.odt
refers to a decision in support of his submission in the case
of Sau. Snehal Omprakash Kothekar vs. Shri
Omprakash Domaji Kothekar reported in 2014(1) All
MR 297. He further points out the distance between the
two places is 500 kilometer and urges this court to grant
application for transfer.
7. Learned counsel further submits that the respondent
is able bodied person and would be able to travel to
Omerga comfortably and difficulties expressed on his behalf
are not such, as would prevent him from undertaking
journey.
8. Learned counsel for respondent, Mrs. Sukhsagar
Singh resists the request of the applicant and submits that
the applicant had been after him to yield to her desire to
get separated from his parents and other members of
family. Respondent stays in Mumbai along with his brothers
and parents and there has been mishap due to strain in
marital relationship. She further submits that affidavit-in-
reply and the annexures thereto would show that
respondent is suffering ailment and documents are
indicative of suffering by respondent i.e chest pain and
contends it would not be desirable to travel long distances.
69.2016MCA.odt
She further submits that reasonable expenses of traveling
to Mumbai may be borne by the respondent, however,
magnitude of expenses suggested on behalf of applicant
would be difficult to be provided by him.
9. Looking at aforesaid, parties do not appear to be in
dispute on that there is distance of 500 kilometer between
Bandra, Mumbai and Omerga and so also about economic
status of the applicant and her parents and further that the
respondent is getting seasonally employed as driver.
10. In the circumstances, looking at that, respondent is
able bodied and working person and though is contended to
be suffering ailment, it is not a case, the ailment would not
allow him to travel. In such a case, dates matter can be so
arranged as would be convenient to the respondent to
attend the court proceedings at Omerga, District
Osmanabad. It would thus be conducive to the interest of
the parties to go ahead with the proceedings as
expeditiously as possible, from the stage at which the
proceedings are standing at Bandra, Mumbai.
11. In view of aforesaid, miscellaneous civil application
stands allowed.
69.2016MCA.odt
12. Proceedings i.e. Marriage Petition no. A-2197/2015,
pending before family court at Bandra, Mumbai are
transfered to a competent court at Omerga in Osmanabad
district.
13. Dates in proceedings after transfer at Omarga be so
arranged, as would be convenient to the respondent.
14. It is expected that parties would cause their
appearance on 2nd May, 2017, before the competent court
at Omerga, District Osmanabad. The proceedings be
disposed of as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a
period of six months from 2nd May, 2017.
15. Rule made absolute accordingly.
[SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.]
vdk
