Dismissed

Swati Vishal Ugale @ Swati Laxman Dhumal v. Vishal Nivrutti Ugale

Bombay HC6 Dec 2021MCA/115/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant wife sought to transfer restitution of conjugal rights proceedings from the Civil Court at Sangamner to the Family Court at Bandra, alleging inconvenience. The Court rejected the application, holding that the husband's residence at his origin and the applicant's temporary job did not justify transfer.

What did the court decide?

Application for transfer of proceedings is rejected and dismissed; leave to traverse granted.

Swati Vishal Ugale @ Swati Laxman Dhumal Vs Vishal… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

44-MCA115-2021.DOC

¶2

AGK

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 115 OF 2021

¶4

Swati Vishal Ugale Alias Swati Laxman Dhumal...Applicant
Versus

¶5

Vishal Nivrutti Ugale...Respondent

¶6

Ms. Savita Yadav, for the Applicant.
Ms. Asha Landge, for the Respondent.

¶7

CORAM: Smt. Bharati Dangre, J. DATED: 6th December 2021

¶8

P.C.:-

¶9

1.The Applicant-wife has sought transfer of the
proceedings filed by the Respondent-husband seeking
restitution of conjugal rights in the Court of Civil Judge Senior
Division, Sangamner to the Family Court at Bandra. The
ground set out in the application is that the proceedings pose
inconvenience to her.

¶10

Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL GANESH KULKARNI GANESH Date: KULKARNI 2021.12.09 10:09:22 +0530

¶11

2.The marriage between the Applicant and the
Respondent was solemnized in May 2018 and on account of

¶12

Page 1 of 3

¶13

44-MCA115-2021.DOC

¶14

the differences between them, the Applicant is staying with
her parents. The Respondent-husband filed Petition under
Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking restitution
of conjugal rights which is sought to be transferred.

¶15

An admitted position is that the Respondent-husband is
staying at Sangamner and though it is submitted that at some
point of time since he was engaged in some private job in
Mumbai he was residing in Mumbai when the parties
cohabited together. However, when he lost his job, he has
chosen to return to his place of origin, i.e. Sangamner as the
Counsel for the Respondent submit that he cannot afford to
stay in Mumbai. The submission of the Counsel for the
Applicant that the sister and brother-in-law of the
Respondent-husband are staying in Thane, therefore, it is
convenient for him to attend the proceedings in Family Court
at Bandra is no justification.

¶16

3.Any man is surely expected to have his own self-esteem
and if he choose not to stay with his sister, who stays in
Thane, that is his choice. The Applicant state that she is
working with an NGO, which is a job on temporary basis and,
therefore, merely saying that it will pose her inconvenience
can be no ground to transfer the proceedings. The principle
involved is dominus litis and since the husband who reside in
Sangamner has filed the proceedings in Sangamner, I see no

¶17

Page 2 of 3

¶18

44-MCA115-2021.DOC

¶19

reason to entertain the Application.

¶20

4. The Application is rejected.

¶21

(Smt. Bharati Dangre, J.)

¶22

Page 3 of 3

Swati Vishal Ugale @ Swati Laxman Dhumal v. Vishal Nivrutti Ugale

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Swati Vishal Ugale @ Swati Laxman Dhumal v. Vishal Nivrutti Ugale

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

Nishant Bhupesh Chaturvedi Vs the State of Maharashtra

Basantkumar Kapoorchand Jain Vs the State of Maharashtra

Krishna Shahu Koli Vs the State of Maharashtra

Esha Kalpesh Jain @ Esha Devendrakumar Jain Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shri. Ganpatrao Appasaheb Patil and Ors. Vs the Maharashtra State Co-Operative Bank Ltd. through Administrator and Anr.

Rajesh Vithalrao Gaikwad and Others Vs Kautaka W/O. Rajesh Gaikwad