Bombay High Court
Mrs. Manisha Vijay Jadhav vs Shri. Vijay Prakash Jadhav on 31 August, 2021
Bench: Nitin W. Sambre
21 MCA 262-19.doc
BDP-SPS-TAC
BHARAT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
DASHARATH
PANDIT
Digitally signed by
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BHARAT
DASHARATH
PANDIT
Date: 2021.09.03
12:52:15 +0530
MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.262 OF 2019
Mrs. Manisha Vijay Jadhav ... Applicant.
V/s
Shri Vijay Prakash Jadhav .....Respondent
----
Mr. Raju M. Yamgar for the Applicant.
Mr. Jayendra D. Khairnar for the Respondent.
----
CORAM: NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.
DATE: AUGUST 31, 2021
P.C.:-
1] After matrimonial discord, husband initiated proceedings in
Nashik Court being Marriage Petition No.A-381 of 2018 which is for
for restitution of conjugal rights. I am informed that subsequent to
above, wife has initiated D.V. Act proceedings, so also proceedings for
divorce in the court at Kalyan. Transfer of restitution of conjugal
rights proceedings is sought by the wife on the ground of hardship as,
according to her, the respondent-husband is otherwise also required to
attend the D.V. Act proceedings and divorce proceedings at Kalyan
Court. My attention is invited to the fact that Applicant is a custodian
of four years old daughter. Drawing support from the judgment of the
Apex Court in the matter of Reena Bahri vs. Ajay Bahri reported in
1/4
21 MCA 262-19.doc
(2002) 10 SCC 136, it is claimed that even if Respondent offers travel
charges and out of pocket expenses still order of transfer has to be
passed considering the hardship faced. In response to Court's query,
Counsel for the Respondent concedes that on each date Applicant
physically attends the proceedings conveyance charges and out of
pocket expenses of Rs 2500/- will be paid. It is also claimed that
Family Court at Nashik can order payment of appropriate
compensation to the witnesses of the Applicant towards travel and out
of pocket expenses.
2] Considered rival submissions.
3] The judgment relied upon by the Applicant of the Apex Court in
the matter of Reena Bahri cited supra will be hardly of any assistance,
as in the said case transfer of proceedings was sought from Delhi to
Bombay, whereas in the case in hand transfer of the proceedings is
sought from Nashik to Kalyan and distance between these two places
is hardly about 100 kilometers one way.
4] Apart from above, even if it is considered that applicant-wife is a
2/4
21 MCA 262-19.doc
custodian of four years old daughter, Court cannot be oblivious to the
fact that wife initiated both the proceedings subsequent to proceedings
for restitution of conjugal rights by non-applicant husband.
5] Fact remains that Applicant is residing with her parents and
parents can take care of daughter for limited time for which Applicant
will attend the Court at Nashik which cannot be ignored. As such,
following order is passed:-
ORDER
(i) Non-applicant husband shall deposit an amount of
Rs 5000/- before the Family Court, Nashik in pending
proceedings being Marriage Petition No.A-381 of
2018.
(ii) On each date applicant-wife attends the said
proceedings physically, she will be entitled to
withdraw amount of Rs 2500/- and
non-applicant/husband shall top up the said amount
to the extent of maintaining balance of Rs 5000/- till
disposal of the said proceedings.
(iii) Payment of compensation towards travel and
21 MCA 262-19.doc
out of expenses to each of the witnesses of the
Applicant in the said proceedings is kept open to be
decided by the Family Court at appropriate stage
which non-applicant/husband undertakes to deposit
in the Family Court, once such order is passed.
(iv) Application is accordingly disposed of.
( NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. )
