Bombay High Court
Sow. Pallavi Raju Patil vs Raju Rameshwar Patil on 21 August, 2021
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil
940.MCA.163.17.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION NO.163 OF 2017
SOW. PALLAVI RAJU PATIL
VERSUS
RAJU RAMESHWAR PATIL
...
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Pravin N. Kalani
Advocate for Respondent : Mr. Nirmal R. Dayama
...
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL, J.
DATE : 21.08.2021
PER COURT :
By invoking the powers under Section 24 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, the applicant wife is praying for transfer of a divorce proceeding
initiated by the respondent husband in the Court at Jalgaon bearing H.M.
Petition No.306/2017 to a competent Court at Parbhani.
2. I have heard the learned advocate for the applicant as also the
learned advocate for the respondent.
3. As can be appreciate, the couple was married in the year 2015
but soon got separated. They have a child out of the wedlock. The reasons
for separation apart, after such separation the petitioner with her infant
went back to her parental house at Parbhani and lodged a proceeding under
Section 12 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005
seeking various reliefs on 08.10.2015. It is thereafter that the respondent
filed the Divorce Proceeding in the Court at Jalgaon in June 2017.
940.MCA.163.17.odt
Obviously, since thereafter he must have been required to defend the
proceeding under the Domestic Violence Act at Parbhani. He is a resident of
Jalgaon. It is a fact that the Domestic Violence Act proceeding was
subsequently decided. She has filed an execution proceeding to enforce the
order passed therein whereas he has challenged that judgment in an Appeal
and both these proceeding are pending at Parbhani.
4. As can be seen, the respondent husband has been in some
employment as is mentioned by him in the Appeal Memo filed at Parbhani.
As against this the applicant does not seem to be in any employment and
also does not seem to have any permanent source of income.
5. Taking into account the fact that the applicant is a lady having a
small child, it would certainly be difficult for her to commute between
Parbhani and Jalgaon to defend the Divorce Proceeding which are places
more than 300 kms apart. It is also a matter to be borne in mind that
considering the distance between the two places, it would certainly be
difficult for the applicant to go to Jalgaon and may perhaps to stay overnight
that too with a minor child.
6. The law would always lean in favour of a weaker member of the
couple. Mere readiness of the respondent husband to bear the expenses of
commutation would not serve the purpose. It would be in the fitness of
thing that instead of applicant it is the respondent husband commutes
between the two places.
7. The convenience also demands that now that he has to
940.MCA.163.17.odt
prosecute the Appeal lodged by him at Parbhani and also defend the
execution proceeding at Parbhani, even it would be convenient for him to
prosecute his divorce proceeding by going to Parbhani rather than making
the applicant to go to Jalgaon.
8. Taking into account all the aforementioned facts and
circumstances, the Application deserves to be allowed.
9. The Application is allowed. The H.M. Petition No.306/2017
pending in the file of Family Court at Jalgaon is transferred to the Family
Court at Parbhani.
10. The parties shall appear before the Family Court at Parbhani on
20.09.2021 and there shall be no need for the Family Court to issue notices
to the parties even if they do not appear.
(MANGESH S. PATIL, J.)
habeeb
