Allowed

Chandarani@Sejal Sachin Wakle v. Sachin Sadhuram Wakle

Bombay HC8 Jan 2014MCA/35/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Aurangabad allowed an application transferring High Marital Proceedings filed in Latur to the Court at Beed, considering the applicant-wife's convenience and her elderly father's presence there post-blindness. The proceedings were remanded to Beed for disposal.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings of H.M.P. No.59/2013 transferred from Civil Judge Latur to Civil Judge Beed.

Chandarani@Sejal Sachin Wakle Vs Sachin Sadhuram Wakle — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

M.C.A. No.35/2013

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.35 OF 2013

¶6

Sau. Chandarani @ Sejal w/o Sachin Wakle ... APPLICANT

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

Sachin s/o Sadhuram Wakle ... RESPONDENT

¶9

Shri H.V. Tungar, Advocate for applicant

¶10

CORAM: A.I.S. CHEEMA, J. DATED: 8th January, 2014.

¶11

PER COURT :

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the applicant. This is an application for transfer of petition for restitution of conjugal rights, filed by the respondent in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Latur to Beed.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that, the applicant-wife is residing along with her father at Beed due to matrimonial disputes. He submits that, at Beed, in the house of her parents, only her old aged father, about 69 years is living with her and her mother. Her brothers are residing at Pune.

¶14

M.C.A. No.35/2013

¶15

¶16

According to the learned counsel, Latur, where the HMP has been filed, is at a distance of 160 Kms. from Beed and it will not be convenient for her to travel from Beed to Latur. He submits that, somebody would be required to accompany the applicant for attending the matter at Latur and it would be very much inconvenient for her to come back late evenings to Beed after attending the Court proceedings at Latur. Her father is too old a person. Respondent is resident of Latur and working at Pune where he is served with notice.

¶17

The respondent is reported to have been served with notice. He is not present. In view of the submissions made and the contents of the application, and considering the convenience of the applicant-wife, the Misc. Civil Application is allowed.

¶18

The proceedings of H.M.P. No.59/2013 be transferred from the file of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Latur to the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Beed for disposal in accordance with law. Misc. Civil Application is disposed of.

¶19

(A.I.S. CHEEMA, J.)

¶20

fmp/mca35.13

Chandarani@Sejal Sachin Wakle v. Sachin Sadhuram Wakle

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandarani@Sejal Sachin Wakle v. Sachin Sadhuram Wakle

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shivaji Nivruti Tambade and Ors. Vs Shiubai Namdeo Bade and Ors.

Hiralal Motilal Holani Vs Kachrulal Champalal Agrawal

Chandrashekhar Pukhraj Jain Vs Shakuntalabai Girdharilal Jain and Another

Vijaya Shankar Saraf Vs Dr Ramaswami N Chief Ex Officer Z P Jalgaon

Prajakta Parag Shelke Vs Parag Pandharinath Shelke

Keshav Panditrao Ghogare and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others