Allowed

Bharati Ajay Todankar v. Ajay Balkrishna Todankar

Bombay HC19 Aug 2004MCA/12/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a miscellaneous civil application, the High Court of Bombay dismissed jurisdictional objections regarding the main suit. The Court found inconvenience in requiring the applicant to travel to a distant court and allowed the transfer of the petition to the court of the applicant's residence.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 24 CPC allowed; Matrimonial Petition No. 33 of 2003 transferred from Court at Panvel to Court at Oros, Sindhudurg; Hearing expedited.

Bharati Ajay Todankar Vs Ajay Balkrishna Todankar — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2004)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET

¶5

MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION NO.12 OF 2004

¶6

Ajay Balkrishna Todankar ...Applicant

¶7

Vs.

¶8

Mrs.Bharati Ajay Todankar ...Respondent Mr.R.R.Salvi for the Applicant Ms B.P.Jakhade for the Respondent.

¶9

CORAM: A.S.OKA, J.

¶10

DATED: AUGUST 19, 2004.

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

1. Heard	Shri		Salvi f	or the	Applic	ant and M	r.Gangal	with
Mrs.Jakhade	for t	h	e Respo	ndent.	The	Applicant is	the	wife
and the	Respondent		is the	husband.		The Applicant-	wife is	a
resident of	Sindhudur	g	Distric	t and	she	filed a su	it in	the
Court of	Civil		Judge	(S.D.),	Oros,	District Si	ndhudurg	under
Section 18	of the		Hindu	Adoption	and	Maintenance	Act,	1956.
The Respo	ndent-husband		has	filed	a	Petition for	divorce	in
the Court	of Civi	l	Judge	(S.D.),	Panvel.	The case	of	the
Applicant	is that		the	distance	betwe	en Sindhudurg	and	Panvel
is more	than 400		kms.	The	Applica	nt-wife is	not in	a
position to	attend		the	matrimo	nial	petition filed	by	the
Respondent	in the	C	ourt at	Panvel.		The learned	Counsel	for
the Respon	dent Shri		Gangal	submitte	d th	at the Court	at	Oros
has no	jurisdiction		to	entertain	and	try the	suit	under

¶13

¶14

section 18 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. He submitted that the Respondent who is employed at Panvel is not in a position to attend the Court at Oros, District Sindhudurg considering the nature of his employment. Mrs.Jakhade pointed out that the Applicant has suppressed

¶15

from the Court that a Petition under Section 24 of Hindu

¶16

Marriage Act has been filed in the Court at Panvel.

¶17

I have considered the rival submissions. In so far issue of jurisidiction of Court Civil Judge (S.D.), Oros, District Sindhudurg is concerned, it is for the Respondent to raise that contention in the suit filed by the Applicant. Today I am not concerned with the said issue of jurisidiction. Considering the averments made in the Application, I find that tremendous inconvenience will be caused if the Applicant is required to travel from District Sindhudurg to Panvel. The Applicant will have to undertake a long journey

¶18

frequently. Therefore, a case is made out for transfer

¶19

matrimonial Petition.

¶20

As far as other contention regarding application for maintenance made in the Court at Civil Judge (S.D.), Panvel is concerned, same has nothing to do with the merits of this Application under Section 24 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

¶21

In view of this position Application deserves to be

¶22

¶23

allowed and the same is allowed in terms of prayer clause

¶24

(b). No order as to costs.

¶25

5.	At	this	stage	Shri	Gangal		for the	Respondent	states	that
date	for	appeara	nce	in the	Petit	ion	filed	by the	Re	spondent
after	its	transfer	to	the	Court	at	Oros	be fixed	and	hearing

¶26

of the Petition be expedited. The said request is

¶27

reasonable.

¶28

6.	The	learned	Civil	Judg	e (S.D.),	Panvel	shall	transfer	the
record	and	proc	eedings	of	Hindu Ma	rriage	Petition	No.33	of
2003	on	production	of	an	authenticated	copy	of	this order	to

¶29

the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.) at Oros, Sindhudurg as

¶30

expeditiously as possible.

¶31

7.		Parties	are	direct	ed	to	app	ear be	fore th	e learn	ed	Civil
Judge		(S.D.),	O	ros,	Distri	ct	Sind	hudurg	on	27th		September
2004		for f	ixing	the	sched	ule	of	hearing	of	Hindu		Marriage
Petition		No.33	of	2003.			The	learned	Trial	Judge	will	decide
both	the	matters	i.e.		the		suit	of A	pplicant	and	the	Petition

¶32

filed by the Respondent as expeditiously as possible and

¶33

preferably before 30th June 2005.

¶34

Parties and the concerned courts to act upon an ordinary copy of this order duly authenticated by the Court Sheristedar.

¶35

Judge.

Bharati Ajay Todankar v. Ajay Balkrishna Todankar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bharati Ajay Todankar v. Ajay Balkrishna Todankar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pandu Dadu Jadhav Vs Maruti Mahadu Khambale

Shivaji Dhondiba Hajgude and Anr. Vs Shukracharya Murlidhar Vardole and Anr.

Dr.Mrs.Jyotsna Subhash Modak Vs Dr.Smt.Gangubai Alias Shalinibai Tilak and Ors.

Namarata Ajit Bagal Vs Ajit Bhagwan Bagal

Smt.Kavita Tanaji Shinde and Ors. Vs Shri.Mohan Devu Gadi and Ors.

Smt.Alka Shahji Chonde Vs Shri.Mohan Devu Gadi and Ors.