Disposed

Mrs. Priti Rakesh Parmar v. Mr. Rakesh Rupsingh Parmar

Bombay HC10 Jan 2022MCA/182/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a matrimonial transfer application, the High Court ordered the respondent husband to deposit Rs. 10,000 in pending matrimonial proceedings. The applicant can withdraw Rs. 5,000 towards travel expenses upon her physical attendance at Vasai before the final disposal.

What did the court decide?

Respondent to deposit Rs. 10,000; Applicant entitled to withdraw Rs. 5,000 towards travel upon physical attendance at Vasai.

Mrs. Priti Rakesh Parmar Vs Mr. Rakesh Rupsingh Parmar — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

4 MCA-182-19.doc

¶2

BDP-SPS-TAC

¶3

BHARAT DASHARATH PANDIT

¶4

Digitally signedby BHARATDASHARATHPANDIT Date: 2022.01.1018:15:59 +0530

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 182 OF 2019

¶7

MRS PRITI RAKESH PARMAR….Applicant
V/s

¶8

MR RAKESH RUPSINGH PARMAR…..Respondent

¶9

Mr. Harekrishna Mishra i/b Mr. G. D. Sankpal for the Applicant.
Mr. Pravin Patel for the Respondent.

¶10

CORAM: NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.

¶11

 DATE: JANUARY 10, 2022

¶12

P.C.:-

¶13

1]This application is taken out by wife, seeking transfer of

¶14

proceedings being M. J. Petition No.244 of 2018 pending on the file of

¶15

Civil Judge, Senior Division, Vasai to the file of Civil Judge, Senior
Division, Nashik.

¶16

2]Mr. Mishra, learned Counsel for the Applicant would invite

¶17

attention of this Court to the following factual matrix and the grounds.

¶18

3] Parties got married on 29/01/2012 at Nashik and a daughter

¶19

was born out of the said wedlock on 30/04/2013 who is in the

¶20

1/4

¶21

4 MCA-182-19.doc

¶22

custody of the present applicant. He would further inform that after
initial matrimonial discord, since the applicant was intending to
reunite with the non-applicant, gave an undertaking in pending
matrimonial proceedings on 26/04/2017 which was initiated by the
Respondent-husband for divorce and started residing with the non-
applicant. He would further claim that the said undertaking was
forcefully obtained from the applicant and after the said undertaking,
applicant-wife initiated D.V. Act proceedings No.1938 of 2018on
29/11/2018 which is pending adjudication on the file of Judicial
Magistrate, First Class, Nashik. It is informed that Respondent is
already attending the said proceedings.

¶23

4]In the aforesaid backdrop, Mr. Mishra, learned Counsel for the
Applicant would urge that the Applicant will be suffering financial so
also physical hardship as she has to attend her minor daughter and the
monthly maintenance of Rs 3,500/- per month is not sufficient to cope
up with financial pressure of travelling to Mumbai. As such, he would
urge that apart from financial hardship, Applicant will suffer physical
hardship also.

¶24

2/4

¶25

4 MCA-182-19.doc

¶26

5]While countering the submissions, learned Counsel for the
Respondent would urge that fact about filing of D.V. Act proceedings is
suppressed. He would further urge that undertaking dated 26/4/2017
in divorce proceedings being M.J. Petition No.292 of 2016 is not
questioned by the Applicant. He has claimed that Respondent-
husband is required to look after his aged father who is also added as
an accused in D.V. Act proceedings which speaks of very intention of
the Applicant. According to him, Respondent-husband is willing to
bear travel expenses of the Applicant-wife.

¶27

6] Considered submissions.

¶28

7]The fact that Applicant gave an undertaking before the Court of
Civil Judge, Senior Division, Vasai in M.J. Petition No.292 of 2016,
thereby accepting her all defaults is apparently inferred from the
contents therein. Fact remains that the said undertaking is not
questioned by the Applicant being an undertaking obtained by
misleading or forcefully. Be that as it may, fact that non-applicant is
also working in Mumbai and he is required to take care of his ailing
father is established from the record. He having graciously consented

¶29

3/4

¶30

4 MCA-182-19.doc

¶31

for bearing travel expenses of the Applicant if she physically attends
the proceedings at Vasai is also accepted. That being so, following
order is passed.

¶32

8]Non-applicant shall deposit an amount of Rs 10,000/- in M.J.
Petition No.244 of 2018 within a period of four weeks from today. He
shall continue to maintain the said deposit of Rs 10,000/- till final
disposal of M.J. Petition No.244 of 2018. The date on which the
Applicant attends the said M.J. Petition No.244 of 2018 physically, she
will be entitled to withdraw the amount of Rs 5,000/- towards travel
and out of pocket expenses.

¶33

9] With the above observations, present Application stands disposed

¶34

of.

¶35

(NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. )

¶36

4/4

Mrs. Priti Rakesh Parmar v. Mr. Rakesh Rupsingh Parmar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Priti Rakesh Parmar v. Mr. Rakesh Rupsingh Parmar

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

Vitthal Laxman Dagade and Ors. Vs Ramchandra @ Ramdas Laxman Dagade

Mrs. Geetanjali Ashok Kolekar Vs Mr. Ashok Arjun Kolekar

Neeraj Shridhar Vs Nikila Shridhar W/O. Neeraj Shridhar

Mrs. Geetanjali Sachin Thakur Vs Mr. Sachin Kamlakar Thakur

Sambhaji Balkrishna Zambre Vs Chaya Balkrishna Zambre

Sau. Dipti Prashant Lage Vs Shri. Prashant Ravindra Lage