Allowed

Sau. Sonal W/O. Ashish Chopade v. Ashish S/O. Chandrakant Chopade

Bombay HC19 Jul 2017MCA/1098/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed an application for transfer of a pending divorce petition from Nashik to Buldhana despite pending DV and maintenance proceedings, ruling that transferring at this specific stage protected the ends of justice.

What did the court decide?

Transfer of Petition no. 186/2015 from Court at Nashik to Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Buldhana; counter prayer for transfer rejected.

Sau. Sonal W/O. Ashish Chopade Vs Ashish S/O… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

1 mca1098

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶3

Misc. Civil Application No. 1098/2015 Sau. Sonal W/o Ashish Chopade Vs

¶4

Ashish S/o Chandrakant Chopade

¶5

- - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

¶6

¶7

Shri R.G. Kavimandan, Adv. for the applicant

¶8

CORAM : S.B.Shukre, J. DATE : 19.7.2017 .

¶9

Heard the Learned Counsel for the applicant.

¶10

This application is strongly opposed by the Learned Counsel for the non-applicant contending that no inconvenience whatsoever is going to be caused to the applicant. According to the Learned Counsel for the applicant, the applicant is not permanent resident of Nashik. She visits Nashik only occasionally and that too when it is required of her to take written examination of a course being offered by Nashik Open University of which Nashik is the examination center. He also submits that the address given in the complaint was actually a temporary address and used by the applicant only for residing when she visited Nashik to take the written

¶11

2 mca1098

¶12

examination of the Open University. He also submits that the applicant is not doing any business at Nashik and it is falsely contended by the non-applicant that she carries on some business at Nashik.

¶13

It appears that in the first reply dated 17/06/2017, this applicant did not specifically deny the allegation that she is doing a job at Nashik and residing there, though in the second reply she has denied so. But, she has not given any explanation as to why did she not deny the same at the earliest available opportunity. Therefore, specific denial in subsequent reply, filed after a long gap in between, can no more than an afterthought, and is rejected.

¶14

This would lead me to find substance in the contentions of the learned Counsel for the nonapplicant that the applicant must be doing some job in Nashik and no merit in the submission of Learned Counsel for the applicant that she is not permanent resident of Nashik and she visits Nashik only occasionally when it is required of her part to take the examination. This would also lead to the conclusion that

¶15

3 mca1098

¶16

the applicant is capable of undertaking the journeys from Buldhana to Nashik and Nashik to Buldhana without any difficulty and inconvenience on her part.

¶17

It is stated in a Para 3 of the application that three proceedings are pending between the applicant and the parties, with one relating to a Divorce petition pending before the Nashik Court, the second to an application filed under the provision of Domestic Violence Act and third to an application filed under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before Buldhana Courts.

¶18

In the domestic violence proceedings, the parents of the non-applicant are also joined as non-applicants. These two proceeding, it is submitted by the Learned Counsel for the applicant, are pending at the stage of cross-examination of the applicant.

¶19

Considering the stage of the proceedings pending before Buldhana Courts, I am of the view that, if there is a transfer of proceedings at this stage to Nashik, the ends of justice are likely to suffer.

¶20

In view of the above, I am of the opinion that this application deserves to be allowed.

¶21

In the circumstances, the application is allowed. Petition being Petition no. 186/2015 pending before family

¶22

4 mca1098

¶23

Court, Nashik, stands transfered to Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Buldhana. The application is allowed in these terms. No Costs.

¶24

Divorce petition shall be disposed of by the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division as expeditiously as possible preferably within 1 year from the date of receipt of proceedings from the Nashik Court. This is, however, subject to both the parties co-operating with the Trial Court.

¶25

The counter prayer made for transfer of proceedings is rejected.

¶26

JUDGE

¶27

A.P. Ansari

Sau. Sonal W/O. Ashish Chopade v. Ashish S/O. Chandrakant Chopade

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sau. Sonal W/O. Ashish Chopade v. Ashish S/O. Chandrakant Chopade

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

Asha Prakash Bhokre Vs Milind Shriram Bansod and 3 Others

Swarupchand Motilal Jain (Bohra) Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

W.C.L. Thr. Chief General Manager, Chandrapur Vs Dadaji Bijram Pathade, Chandrapur and 3 Otrs

Executive Engineer, Lower Wardha Project Division, Wardha Vs Narendra Vithalrao Shende and 2 Others

Executive Engineer, Purna Medium Project, Achalpur Division Vs Uttam Vishramji Nagapure and 2 Others

Union of India and Representing Central Railways through Its General Manager, Bombay Vs Dyaneshwar Govind Dehankar