Allowed

Subhangi Praveen Sutar v. Praveen Vishnu Sutar

Bombay HC3 May 2005MCA/97/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed the petitioner-wife's application for transfer of pending divorce and restitution of conjugal rights petitions from the Family Court at Mumbai to the Circuit Court at Satara. It held that convenience of the wife and custody of the minor child govern the transfer.

What did the court decide?

The application for transfer of the divorce petition from the Family Court, Mumbai, to the Circuit Court, Satara, was allowed.

Subhangi Praveen Sutar Vs Praveen Vishnu Sutar — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2005)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶2

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 97 OF 2004 Sou.Subhangi Praveen Sutar. ... Petitioner. Versus. Praveen Vishnu Sutar. ... Respondent. Shri Uday Warunjikar for the Petitioner. Ms.Smita Telang for the Respondent.

¶4

CORAM : ABHAY S. OKA, J.

¶5

DATED : 3rd May, 2005.

¶6

P.C.:
1.	Heard	the learned Coun	sel	appearing for the	parties.
The	Applicant	is the wife	and	the Respondent is	the
husband.		The Applicant-wife	has	filed a petition	for
restitution		of conjugal rig	hts	against the Re	spondent
which i	s pend	ing in the Court	of	the Civil Judge,	Senior
Division	at	Satara. The	Applic	ant is the resident	at
village	Atit,	Taluka and	Di	strict Satara.	The
Respondent	i	s a resident of	Mumb	ai. The Respondent	has
filed a	peti	tion for divorce	agai	nst the Applicant	which
is pen	ding	in the Family	Co	urt at Mumbai.	This
Application	is	for transfer of	the	petition filed by	the
Respondent	to	the Court of	the	Civil Judge,	Senior
Division	at	Satara. The	gr	ound pleaded in	the
application	for	transfer is	tha	t the Applicant	is
residing	at vi	llage Atit, Taluka	&	Dist. Satara and	the
Applicant	is	having a custody	of	minor child. The	case
is	that	the Applicant finds	it	very difficult to	attend

¶7

: 2 :

¶8

the Family Court at Mumbai. It is stated that the age of the minor child is only 16 to 17 months. It is also stated that the Respondent is a businessman and

¶9

therefore, it will be possible for him to attend the

¶10

Court at Satara.

¶11

2.	This A	pplication is	op	posed	by the		Resp	ondent	by
filing	a reply.	Various	c	ontentio	ns have	b	een	raised	in
the	reply. One	of	the		contentions	is		that	the
Applicant	’s father	is having		high	political	c	lout	and	is
known	to be	a pow	erful	and	influential	m	an	in	the
village	Atit, Tal	uka &	Dist.S	atara.	It	is	sta	ted	that
it wi	ll not be	possible	for	the	Respond	ent	to	attend	the
Court	at Satara	considering	t	he	influence	wei	lded	by	the
father	of the	Applicant.		It	is submi	tted	that	if	the
matter	remains	pending	in	the	Family	Court		there	is
every	possibility	of the	dis	pute	being	resolved		by	the
ADR.	It is	submitted	that	the	Court	at	Satar	a does	not

¶12

have the infrastructure which is possessed by the Family

¶13

Court.

¶14

3.	I	have conside	red the rival	submiss	ions.	There
cannot	be	any dispute	that the petition	filed	by	the
Petitioner	for	restitutio	n of the con	jugal	rights	and
the	petition	filed by	the Respondent	for	divorce	will
have to	be	heard by	one and the	same	Court.	The
Respondent	is	already f	acing petition	for	restitution	of
conjugal	rights	which is	pending in the	Co	urt at	Satara.

¶15

: 3 :

¶16

The Respondent has not applied for transfer of the said

¶17

petition to the Family Court at Bandra.

¶18

4.		The	Appl	icant	is	the resident	of	village		Atit,
Taluka		and	Distri	ct	Satara.	It is not	in	dispute		that
the	minor	child	is	onl	y 16	to 17 months	old.	It	is	well

¶19

settled position that in the matters like this, the

¶20

convenience of the wife is to be seen.

¶21

5.		The	Respond	ent	is	contesting	the	petition	filed		by
the	wife	in	the C	ourt	at	Satara.	The	refore,	even	if	the
petition		filed	by	him	is	transfe	rred to	the	Court		at
Satara,		there	will	not	be	any	prejudice.		If the		father
of	the	P	etitioner	cr	eates		any	difficulty	for		the

¶22

Respondent, it is always open for the Respondent to take

¶23

out appropriate proceedings in accordance with the law.

¶24

6.	The	Court	of	the Civ	il	Judge,	Senio	r	Division,	is
vested	with	the	juris	diction	to	hear	and		decide	the
petitions	under	the	Hindu	Marri	age	Act,	195	5.		Section
89 of	the	Code	of	Civil		Procedu	re,	1908	is	also
applicable	to	the	said	Court.		The	said	Court	is	also
bound	to	make	effor	ts for	a	micable	sett	lement		between
the	parties.	T	herefore,	there	is	no	subs	tance	in	the
contention	of	the	Re	spondent	tha	t the	said		Court	at
Satara	does	not	have	infrastru	cture	to	deal		with	the
petition	for	divorce	filed	by	the	Re	spondent	.	The	said

¶25

contention is totally misconceived and deserves to be

¶26

: 4 :

¶27

rejected.

¶28

7.	He	nce a	case	of	transfer	is ma	de	out.	Ac	cordingly
the	Appl	ication	is	allow	ed in	terms	of		prayer	clause
(a).		The	lear	ned	District	Judge,	Sa	tara,	will	ensure
that	the	petiti	ons	filed	by	both		the	parties	are

¶29

assigned to one and the same Court for hearing and deciding the same together.

¶30

The parties and the Courts below to act on

¶31

authenticated copy of this order.

¶32

Judge.

Subhangi Praveen Sutar v. Praveen Vishnu Sutar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subhangi Praveen Sutar v. Praveen Vishnu Sutar

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

Ranjana Shivaji Aatole Vs Shrihari Sakharam Gawade and Ors.

Deepak Dnyandeo Kadam and Others. Vs Shri Popat Pandharinath Kadam.

Mr.Rajan Babulal Mehta Vs the Municipal Commissioner

Mahammad Ibrahimsaheb Shaikh Vs Wardhaman Sales Corporation

Shri Cchanappa Gurushantappa Vs Maharashtra State Electricity Board

Shri Mohan Kaka Sawant Vs Maharashtra State and Ors.