Court refused to transfer a Hindu Marriage Petition from Karad to Sangli during pendency, noting the husband's evidence was already recorded and transfer would be improper at this stage.
nil
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
mca 72.10.doc15
1
srk
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION NO.72 OF 2010
Sau. Hemalata Suresh Pawar ... Applicant Vs. Dr.Suresh Ramchandra Pawar ... Respondent
Mr. A.J.Kandarkar, advocate i/b Ms. Shubhangi S.Kadam, advocate for Applicant.
Mr. Dilip Bodake, advocate for the Respondent.
CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATE : 6th September, 2010.
P. C.
2 The wife has filed this Application for transfer of Hindu Marriage Petition No. 66 of 2009 from the court of the Civil Judge Senior Division at Karad to the court of the Civil Judge Senior Division at Sangli. The learned counsel for the Respondent points out that the matter is part heard, evidence of the Petitionerhusband is already recorded and matter is now for defence of the wife. Distance between two places is only 60
2 mca 72.10.doc15
k.m. Therefore, I do not find it proper to transfer the matter at this stage. The wife can make a request to the trial court to grant her costs of litigation and transportation. If such an Application is made the trial court shall pass appropriate order.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the marriage petition should be transferred from Karad to Sangli at this stage?
Sau. Hemalata Suresh Pawar
Dr. Suresh Ramchandra Pawar
J.H. BHATIA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
