Neelam Sunil Sawlani D/O Narain P ... vs Sunil Murlidhar Sawlani
2022 Latest Caselaw 4351 Guj

     C/MCA/198/2021                              JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2022




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                 R/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 198 of 2021


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ASHOKKUMAR C. JOSHI
==========================================================
1    Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed                  No
     to see the judgment ?

2    To be referred to the Reporter or not ?                           No

3    Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy                 No
     of the judgment ?

4    Whether this case involves a substantial question                 No
     of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
     of India or any order made thereunder ?

==========================================================
                NEELAM SUNIL SAWLANI D/O NARAIN P AHUJA
                                Versus
                       SUNIL MURLIDHAR SAWLANI
==========================================================
Appearance:
KAUSHAL H PATEL(9328) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR SP MAJMUDAR(3456) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
VIJAY H PATEL(7361) for the Opponent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
    CORAM:HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ASHOKKUMAR C. JOSHI

                             Date : 22/04/2022
                             ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Anshul Shah with learned

advocate Mr. Jamshed kavina with learned advocate Mr. S.P.

Majmudar for the applicant and learned advocate Mr. Vijay Patel for

the respondent at length.

2. Rule. Learned advocate Mr. Vijay Patel waives service of rule for the respondent.

      C/MCA/198/2021                                JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2022




3.      The     present   application   under    Section-24     of    the      Civil

Procedure Code,1908 (for short the Code) is filed by the applicant-

wife to transfer the Hindu Marriage Petition No.2190 of 2019

pending before the Family Court at Ahmedabad to the Family Court

at Vadodara.

4. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant -wife got

married with the respondent - husband on 18.02.2017 as per Hindu

rites and rituals at Ahmedabad. That, after the marriage, the

applicant -wife started living with the respondent - husband. That,

the respondent - husband started harassing the applicant and also

meted cruel treatment to the applicant-wife. That, in this context,

the applicant had also given a complaint to the National Commission

of Women on 27.05.2020. That, the applicant had been deserted by

the respondent by vacating the rented premises in Mumbai where

they both stayed without bringing into the notice to the applicant

and the applicant is at present residing with her parents at

Vadodara. That, opponent - husband has filed an application being

H.M.P NO. 2190 of 2019 under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act,

1955 before the Family Court at Ahmedabad inter-alia seeking

divorce.

5. Learned advocate Mr. Anshul Shah for the applicant submitted

that the applicant is a house wife. It is further submitted that the

distance between the Vadodara to Ahmedabad is approximately 110

C/MCA/198/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2022

KM (one side) and therefore, round trip about 220 KM, which causes

hardships to the applicant-wife for attending the Court proceedings

at Ahmedabad. It is submitted that the respondent - husband is

residing at Bombay and therefore, it is easy for him to attend the

Court proceedings at Vadodara. He also submitted that the

proceedings are pending before the Family Court at Ahmedabad

may be transferred to the learned Family Court at Vadodara.

6. Per contra, Learned advocate Mr. Vijay Patel for the

respondent has urged that in the present case, it is not true that the

respondent - husband is residing at Bombay but sometime he visits

Bombay. He placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the

case of Vaibhavi Pinkesh Solanki Vs. Pinkesh Vijaykumar Solanki

reported in 2021 (3) GLR 2199, wherein, it is observed that the

transfer application filed by the applicant - wife is dismissed by

imposing to and fro travel expenditure to attend the court

proceedings upon the respondent - husband and therefore, this

application may be dismissed on the same line.

7. Having herd the arguments advanced by learned advocates

of both the sides, it appears that the distance between Bombay to

Baroda is lesser in compare to the distance between the Bombay

and Ahmedabad. Further, the applicant is a house wife, upon such

premises the judgment delivered by this Court is not helpful to the

respondent - husband, since the facts and circumstances of the

C/MCA/198/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2022

present case are totally different. Moreover, in that case, the

applicant-wife was working as a fashion designer and in the present

case, the applicant is a house wife. Further, it would be difficult for

the applicant to travel about 220 kms from Vadodara to Ahmedabad

for round trip and the applicant is a house wife, which may cause

hardships for the woman to attend the Court proceedings. This

Court has also relied upon the decisions rendered in the case of

Minesh Rajnikant Dalal v/s. Avani Minesh Dalal, reported in

2002 (2) GLR 1685 also referred to the decision made in the case

of Jayshreeba Jayendrasinh Raulji Vs. Jayendrasinh

ganpatsinh Raulji in MCA no. 431 of 2019. Therefore this is a

fit case to exercise discretion under section 24 of CPC for

transferring the matter from Ahmedabad to Vadodara. The

application is allowed. The proceedings of the Hindu Marriage

Petition No.2190 of 2019, pending before the learned Family Court

at Ahmedabad is ordered to be transferred to the learned Family

Court at Vadodara. Rule is made absolute. No orders as to costs.

Direct service is permitted.

(A. C. JOSHI,J) prk