Bombay High Court
Sau. Preeti Gajanan Jain vs Mr. Gajanan Dilip Jain on 23 August, 2021
Bench: Pushpa V. Ganediwala
1 32 mca365.21.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 365 OF 2021
Sau. Preeti Gajanan Jain
Vs.
Mr. Gajanan Dilip Jain
_______________________________________________________________________
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,
appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders.
and Registrar's Orders.
Shri Akash P. Joshi, Advocate for applicant.
Shri Amol M. Jaltare, Advocate for non-applicant.
CORAM : PUSHPA V. GANEDIWALA, J.
DATE : 23rd AUGUST, 2021.
Heard.
2. By way of this application, the applicant-wife is
seeking transfer of proceedings i.e. Hindu Marriage Petition
No.A-1502 of 2017, filed by the non applicant/husband,
which is pending on the file of Family Court No.5, Pune to
the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Chandrapur.
3. It is stated that the marriage between the
applicant and non-applicant was solemnized on 14.05.2015
and out of the said wedlock they are blessed with a son by
name Viraj. It is stated that on account of marital discord
between the parties, the applicant came to the house of her
parents along with her son Viraj and staying there at their
mercy.
4. Applicant is seeking transfer on the ground that
the applicant is finding difficulty to attend each and every
date at Family Court, Pune since distance between the two
2 32 mca365.21.odt
places is more than 850 Kms and there is no direct
connectivity between Saoli and Pune. It takes 18 hours
journey from Saoli to Pune. It is further stated that the
Applicant has no independent source of income and she is
depending on her father for her livelihood. The applicant
has to look after her minor son.
5. In response, non-applicant/husband in his reply,
resisted the application and submitted that the applicant
does not want to reside with the non-applicant. Non-
applicant also stated about regular attendance of applicant/
wife in the aforesaid proceedings. The non-applicant also
placed on record the order-sheet of the proceedings. Shri
Amol Jaltare, learned counsel appearing for
non-applicant/husband submitted that there is no point in
transferring the petition when the matter is already fixed for
judgment.
6. I considered the rival submissions and perused
the record. At the outset a perusal of Roznama would
indicate that the applicant/wife was not regular in attending
the proceedings. Once the proceedings was proceeded
further by passing 'No W.S.' order against her. However,
thereafter it came to be recalled and the applicant was
permitted to place on record her written statement.
Thereafter, the matter could not be proceeded due to
lockdown.
7. On 20.01.2021, considering the absence of
applicant on last date 'No Cross' order came to be passed
3 32 mca365.21.odt
against the applicant/wife. On the next date i.e. on
12.02.2021, due to her absence, evidence for
applicant/wife's side was closed and the date was fixed for
final arguments.
8. Aforesaid facts clearly establish that the applicant
was finding it difficult to attend the proceeding and hence
the Court proceeded further in her absence. The non-
applicant/husband has filed a case for divorce which would
have serious consequences on marital life of the applicant.
The applicant/wife would be deprived of establishing her
case only because she is not able to attend the proceedings
at Pune. Justice would be done only if both the parties are
heard properly.
9. In the aforesaid background, the applicant has
made out case for transfer. I am therefore inclined to allow
the application. Accordingly, the application is allowed in
terms of prayer clause (i), which is reproduced below:
"i) transfer H.M.P (Petition - A) No.1502/2017 -
(Gajanan Dilip Jain Versus Sau. Preeti Gajanan
Jain) pending before the Family Court No.5, Pune
to the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division,
Chandrapur, in the interest of justice;"
10. The application stands disposed of.
JUDGE
Wagh
