Bombay High Court
Mrs. Swati W/O Manish Dhoke vs Manish S/O Sidharth Dhoke on 9 June, 2022
Bench: S. M. Modak
10.MCA.513.2021. 1/3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
Misc. Civil Application (Transfer) No.513/2021
Mrs. Swati w/o Manish Dhoke
..Versus..
Manish s/o Sidharth Dhoke
****************************************************************************************************
Office notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders
or directions and Registrar's orders.
****************************************************************************************************
Shri N.Y. Lade, Advocate h/f Shri N.A. Pantawane, Advocate for the Applicant.
Shri Hariom V. Dhage, Advocate for the Non-applicant.
CORAM : S.M. MODAK, J.
DATE : 9th JUNE, 2022.
1. Heard learned Advocate for the applicant-wife and
learned Advocate for the non-applicant-husband.
2. The non-applicant-husband has filed a petition for
restitution before the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Akola
bearing Hindu Marriage Petition No.43/2020. The present
applicant is the respondent therein. In that petition, the Court has
started recording of evidence and it is fixed for husband's cross-
examination to be taken by the wife. The wife is also getting
travelling expenses from the husband, as per the order of the
matrimonial Court.
3. Apart from that, wife has filed a proceedings under
Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Family
Court, Nagpur and it is fixed for hearing on interim application.
Now, the wife wants the restitution petition pending before the
10.MCA.513.2021. 2/3
Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Akola be transferred to the
Family Court, Nagpur. It is opposed on behalf of the husband.
4. Learned Advocate for the husband relied upon a
judgment in the case of Santhini Vs. Vijaya Venketesh1. Whether
video conferencing is permissible in matrimonial Curt was an issue
referred to Larger Bench. In paragraph 58, where it is permissible
and where it is not permissible is laid down. Though learned
Advocate for the husband invited my attention to paragraph 3
reproducing the observations of the earlier bench. Those
observations were overruled and it is noted in paragraph 58.6.
5. I do not think that video conferencing is permissible in
this case, wherein the wife can cross-examine the husband when
the matter is pending before the matrimonial Court, Akola. It is
true that Akola is far away from Nagpur. Even though modes of
transport are available as compared with the husband, it is difficult
for the wife to go to Akola from Nagpur. Even though she is
getting travelling expenses, otherwise also the husband is attending
the Family Court, Nagpur.
6. For the above circumstances, the prayer for transfer of
the marriage petition needs to be allowed. Hence, the order:
ORDER
a) The application is allowed.
1 (2018) 1 SCC 1
10.MCA.513.2021. 3/3
b) Hindu Marriage Petition No.43/2020 pending before
the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Akola is
transferred to the Family Court, Nagpur for further
enquiry and disposal.
c) Learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Nagpur to
allot this matter to the Court, who is seized of
Maintenance Petition No.42/2020.
d) The non-applicant-husband is directed to attend the
Family Court, Nagpur on 27th June, 2022.
e) In view of that, the matrimonial Court at Akola need
not to proceed with the matter.
f) The concerned Family Court, Nagpur is directed to
dispose of the maintenance petition and restitution
petition together.
g) The application is disposed of.
JUDGE
Vijay
Signed By:VIJAY KUMAR
Personal Assistant
Signing Date:10.06.2022 11:25
