Partly allowed

Vineet Krishankumar Chawla v. Shilpa Vineet Chawla

Bombay HC22 Dec 2021MCA/252/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court transferred a wife's divorce petition originally filed in Nagpur and a husband's custody petition originally filed in Pune to the Family Court at Thane. This ensured both matters before Judges came under one jurisdiction, utilizing video conferencing to minimize the husband's travel while protecting the wife's residence and child care needs.

What did the court decide?

Divorce petition transferred from Nagpur to Thane; Custody petition transferred from Pune to Thane; proceedings assigned to same judge at Thane.

Vineet Krishankumar Chawla Vs Shilpa Vineet… — Child Custody and Guardianship | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

9-MCA252-2021.DOC

¶2

AGK

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 252 OF 2021

¶4

WITH

¶5

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 4247 OF 2021 AND

¶6

INTERIM APPLICATION ST. NO. 8871 OF 2021

¶7

Vineet Krishnakumar Chawla...Applicant
Versus
Shilpa Vineet Chawla...Respondent

¶8

MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 119 OF 2021 WITH

¶9

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2080 OF 2021

¶10

Shilpa Vineet Chawla Alias Shilp Joshi...Applicant
Versus
Vineet Krishnakumar Chawla...Respondent

¶11

Mr. Naveen Sharma, i/b Preetisingh J. Pardeshi, for the
Applicant in MCA/252/2021 & for the Respondent in MCA/
119/2021.

¶12

Digitally signed ATUL by ATUL GANESH GANESH KULKARNI KULKARNI Date: 2021.12.23 13:41:38 +0530

¶13

Mr. Mayank Sharma, for the Respondent in MCA/252/2021 &
for the Applicant in MCA/119/2021.

¶14

CORAM:Smt. Bharati Dangre, J.
DATED:22nd December 2021

¶15

Page 1 of 6

¶16

9-MCA252-2021.DOC

¶17

P.C.:-

¶18

1.By the present two Miscellaneous Civil Applications, the
respective husband and wife are seeking transfer of the
proceedings filed by each against the other in two distinct
Courts. Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 252 of 2021 is
filed by the husband by which he is seeking transfer of
Divorce Petition No. A-1033 of 2019 filed by the wife at
Family Court, Nagpur to the Family Court at Pune. It is
pertinent to note that this Petition is instituted by the wife in
the year 2019, at the relevant time when she was temporarily
residing in Nagpur.

¶19

Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 119 of 2021 is filed
by the wife by which she is seeking transfer of the Custody
Petition, i.e. Petition D No. 2 of 2020 filed by the husband in
the Family Court at Pune to the Family Court at Thane since
the wife along with her seven year old child is residing in
Thane.

¶20

2.The undisputed facts are that the marriage between the
parties was solemnized on 25.10.2012 at Nagpur. It is also not
in dispute that the parties cohabited at Pune temporarily till a
point of time when the wife moved to Nagpur to reside with
her maternal aunt who offered shelter to her. However, since

¶21

Page 2 of 6

¶22

9-MCA252-2021.DOC

¶23

she was not able to set up herself at Nagpur she has shifted to
Thane in December 2019, and the reason for choosing Thane
as a place of residence is that her parents are residing in
Thane. The admitted fact is that as on date the wife is residing
in Thane and it is informed by the Counsel for the wife that
presently she is not having any job and she is a doctorate in
Ayurveda (B.A.M.S.) and in absence of being engaged in any
job, she is also dependent on her parents, who are also taking
care of her as well as her son.

¶24

3.I made every attempt to convince the parties that they
can agree to a common Court where both the proceedings can
be proceeded simultaneously, being the Divorce Petition filed
by the wife and the Custody Petition filed by the husband.
However, the learned Counsel are not able to reach at a
consensus, which has constrained me to pass an order on
merits.

¶25

4.Since the wife has instituted the Divorce Petition at
Nagpur, and since it is conceded by her Counsel that she is no
longer residing at Nagpur, necessarily the proceedings will
have to be shifted from the Family Court at Nagpur to an
appropriate Court, which is either Family Court at Pune or
Family Court at Thane. The claim of the husband is that it
should be transferred to Pune, whereas the wife find it
convenient to get the Petition transferred to Thane where she

¶26

Page 3 of 6

¶27

9-MCA252-2021.DOC

¶28

is presently residing. The Respondent-husband is saved of the
long and arduous journey of travelling to Nagpur and the
distance between Pune and Thane being barely 150 kms, it is
possible for him to undertake the journey for attending the
Court in Thane where the Divorce Petition filed by the wife is
sought to be transferred, the propriety demands that even the
Custody Petition can be tried by the Family Court at Thane
which is a relief claimed by the wife in her Miscellaneous Civil
Application No. 119 of 2021.

¶29

5.Since the Family Court at Thane has access to the
facility of video conferencing, the husband need not attend
the proceedings on each and every date and on a direction
being issued to the Family Court to avail the facility of video
conferencing except whenever examination or cross-
examination of the parties warrant attendance / personal
presence in the Court can be arranged for. This would
minimise the inconvenience to the husband to take up the
journey, to attend the proceedings at Family Court at Thane.

¶30

I could see this is the only solution which can be offered
in the backdrop that the wife is not having any job and is
dependent on her parents and is also required to take care of
her child who is of seven years.

¶31

6. Though inconvenience itself cannot be a ground to

¶32

Page 4 of 6

¶33

9-MCA252-2021.DOC

¶34

transfer the proceedings, and since the parties continue to be
governed by the principle of dominus litis, I deem it
appropriate to pass the order of transferring the Custody
Petition to the Family Court at Thane so that the proceedings
can be assigned to the same Judge of the Family Court and
any conflicting orders can be avoided.

¶35

The husband is otherwise availing the custody of the
child in Thane on non-working Saturdays for four fours. The
parties can jointly make a request to the Family Court at
Thane to fix the proceedings on the said date so that the
convenience of the husband can be taken care.

¶36

7.In the aforesaid circumstances, I pass the following
order:

¶37

a) Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 252 of 2021 is partly allowed by transferring Divorce Petition No. A-1033 of 2019 filed by the wife to the Family Court at Thane;

¶38

b) Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 119 of 2021 is allowed by transferring the Custody Petition D. No. 2 of 2020 filed by the husband in the Family Court at Pune to the Family Court at Thane;

¶39

c) On transfer of both the proceedings to the Family

¶40

Page 5 of 6

¶41

9-MCA252-2021.DOC

¶42

Court at Thane, the Principal Judge of the Family
Court at Thane is requested to assign both the
Petitions to the same Judge, with a request to
culminate the proceedings within a period of one
year, i.e. by 31st December 2022.

¶43

d) Needless to state that the parties shall render their cooperation to the Family Court at Thane in disposing of the matters.

¶44

8. Both the Miscellaneous Civil Application are disposed of in these terms.

¶45

9.All the pending Interim Applications are disposed of as
infructuous.

¶46

(Smt. Bharati Dangre, J.)

¶47

Page 6 of 6

Vineet Krishankumar Chawla v. Shilpa Vineet Chawla

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vineet Krishankumar Chawla v. Shilpa Vineet Chawla

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

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Laxmibai Sakharam Modhave and Ors.

The Hon. Secretary, K-1, Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs M/S. Bhayandar Estate Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Shri Prabhakar D. Bhalerao Vs Smt. Shobha Sanjay Meshram

Dinkar Anatu Gurav Since Deceased through His Legal Heirs and Rep. Shri Ahsok D. Gurav and Ors. Vs Shri Vilasrao Dattatraya Jagdale and Ors.

State of Maharashtra through Collector and Ors. Vs Sub. Maj/Hon. Capt. Balasaheb Anandrao Jamadar (Malvadkar) and Ors.

Mihir Builders and Developers Vs Sultan Sirajuddin Mohammad Yasin and Ors.