Allowed

Sou Deepa Satish Nirpane v. Shri Satish Ramrao Nirpane

Bombay HC28 Sept 2010MCA/16/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application to transfer a marriage petition for restitution of conjugal rights from Nanded to Solapur. The order considered the wife's ill health, the distance involved, and jurisdiction issues, directing the lower courts to dispose of both matrimonial petitions together.

What did the court decide?

Marriage Petition No. 75/2009 is transferred from Civil Judge, S.D., Nanded to Civil Judge, S.D., Solapur to be heard and disposed of along with Petition No. 159/2009.

Sou Deepa Satish Nirpane Vs Shri Satish Ramrao Nirpane — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

1 MCA-16-10.sxw

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

Mhi

¶4

MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16 OF 2010

¶5

Sou Deepa Satish Nirpane ... Applicant vs. Shri Satish Ramrao Nirpane ... Respondent

¶6

Mr. R.S.Alange,Advocate, for the applicant. Mr. Sudhir C. Halli,Advocate for the respondent.

¶7

CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 28th September, 2010.

¶8

P.C.

¶9

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

¶10

The applicant is wife of the respondent. They married in June 2007. They have a son. As the relations got strained, the wife left the husband's house. The husband filed Marriage Petition No.75/2009 on 8.5.2009 before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nanded, for restitution of conjugal rights. On 29.6.2009, the wife filed a Marriage Petition for divorce in the Court of Solapur. By this application, she wants the Marriage Petition No.75/2009 filed by the husband to be transferred from the Court at Nanded to the Court at Solapur on the ground that

¶11

she is not keeping good health. She has a small child to look after and there is a

¶12

2 MCA-16-10.sxw

¶13

long journey of about 300 kms. by Bus. The application is opposed. The learned Counsel for the respondent-husband contends that the husband has already filed an application before the Civil Judge, S.D., Solapur challenging the jurisdiction to entertain the petition for divorce and, therefore, according to him, unless that question is decided, the marriage petition pending before the Civil Judge, S.D.,Nanded should not be transferred. I do not find much substance in this contention, in view of the amendment in Sec. 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act by the Amendment Act 50 of 2003 which came into force on 23.12.2003. By that amendment, sub-section (iiia) was added to Sec. 19 and the District Court within the local limits or ordinary original civil jurisdiction will have jurisdiction to entertain the petition filed by the wife if she is living within the jurisdiction on the date of presentation of the petition. There is no dispute that she is living at Solapur and therefore, in view of these provisions, the Solapur Court has got jurisdiction.

¶14

In view of the fact that both the parties have filed the marriage petitions before different courts, it will be in the interest of justice that both the matters may be heard and disposed of together by the same Court. The wife is a young lady with a small child to look after and there is road journey of 300 kms. which has to be undertaken by the Bus. In view of these circumstances, in my

¶15

3 MCA-16-10.sxw

¶16

considered opinion, it will be convenient if the Marriage Petition pending before the Nanded Court is transferred to the Solapur Court.

¶17

For the aforesaid reasons, the Application is allowed. Marriage Petition No.75/2009 is hereby withdrawn from the file of Civil Judge, S.D. Nanded and stands transfered to the Civil Judge, S.D., Solapur with a direction for hearing and disposal along with Petition No.159/2009 filed by the wife. The learned Civil Judge, S.D., Solapur to expedite the hearing and dispose of both the petitions as early as possible.

Sou Deepa Satish Nirpane v. Shri Satish Ramrao Nirpane

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sou Deepa Satish Nirpane v. Shri Satish Ramrao Nirpane

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

Shri Gokuldas Ramraya Pai Vs M/S. Shah Developers Pvt. Ltd.

Venkatesh Ramanna Prabhu Vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Mr. Jawahar Mishra Vs Mr. Rajendra Laxman Bansode and Anr.

Chandrakant Shamrao Jadhav and Ors. Vs Nalinibai Nanasaheb Bhosale and Ors.

Dr. Leena Thakur Vs Prajakt N. Thakur

Ramadhar Ramgarib Kurmi Vs Rev. Father Joseph Paraxedes Periera and Ors,.